equity_analyst_consensus

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds critical context: the API key requirement and the 'no signal' fallback, as well as detailing the return fields (score, confidence, data with subfields). This goes beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with separate paragraphs for purpose, requirements, args, returns, and examples. It is not overly verbose, but the 'Args' section partly repeats the input schema. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded with the key purpose sentence.

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 an output schema (not shown), the description still provides a clear list of return fields. The single required parameter is explained, and the dependencies (API key) are noted. All necessary information for an agent to select and invoke the tool is present.

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 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains both ticker and response_format. It also provides examples (e.g., ticker='AMD') that add practical meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, which are already present. The description compensates adequately for the coverage gap.

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 begins with 'Get Wall Street buy/hold/sell consensus for a stock (Finnhub).' This clearly specifies the action (Get), the resource (consensus), and the data source (Finnhub). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools such as equity_get_quote or equity_valuation.

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 states 'Requires FINNHUB_API_KEY; returns "no signal" if unset or no coverage,' providing clear conditions for use. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or give when-not-to-use advice, which would elevate the score.

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