get_recommendations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and world-access behavior are covered. The description adds a small amount of context by noting the trend is over recent months and price targets are returned 'when available,' but does not disclose auth, rate limits, or freshness details. With annotations covering the core behavior, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences and front-loads what the tool does. The second sentence largely restates return values that are also captured by the output schema, but it remains brief and is not overly repetitive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a simple, read-only getter with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, so extensive description is not required. It covers purpose and output content sufficiently, though adding a pointer to sibling alternatives would make the context more complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single symbol parameter, and the schema already documents valid formats including tickers, ISINs, and the need to use 'search' for company names. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond saying it is for a Yahoo symbol, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: getting analyst recommendation trends and price targets for a Yahoo symbol. It identifies the exact data domain (buy/hold/sell trends and price targets), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_estimates and get_upgrades_downgrades.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_upgrades_downgrades or get_estimates. It does not mention prerequisites or conditions that select this tool over its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.