get_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently explains the return content (buy/hold/sell trend, price targets) and includes the caveat 'when available', which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or any rate limits. The lack of such basic behavioral disclosure prevents a higher score.

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, front-loaded with 'Get', and every sentence adds value. It efficiently conveys both the resource and the return values without excessive detail, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Given the tool has a single well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clarifies the scope of data returned ('over recent months', multiple price target metrics) and the 'when available' caveat. However, it does not provide any guidance on selecting this tool over siblings like get_estimates, which would be a minor addition for full completeness.

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?

The input schema already covers the symbol parameter fully, including examples and guidance to use 'search' for company names (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'analyst recommendation trends and price targets' for a Yahoo symbol, using the specific verb 'Get'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote (quotes) and get_estimates (estimates), as it focuses on recommendation trends and target prices.

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 provides clear context by specifying the tool is for analyst recommendations and price targets, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The instruction 'for a Yahoo symbol' implies the required input format, but lacks explicit comparison to similar tools like get_estimates.

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