get_analysis_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately describes the returned data (counts per recommendation category) and a key limitation (empty results for non-stocks). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, response envelope, or potential rate-limit/auth requirements, so it is moderately transparent but not highly detailed.

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 concise sentences that lead with the primary purpose, then cover limitations and use cases. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundant or vague wording.

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?

For an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, return content, asset applicability, and practical use cases. It could have mentioned default ordering or response structure, but the provided details are sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the time-series nature of the data, which indirectly relates to start_date, end_date, and limit, but it does not add specific parameter semantics beyond the schema's already thorough descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource: analyst recommendation breakdown for a ticker over time, with explicit counts for Strong Buy, Buy, Hold, Sell, and Strong Sell. It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by emphasizing periodic snapshots and sentiment-change tracking.

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 for when to use the tool: building Recommendations charts or tracking sentiment changes over time. It also states an important exclusion: ETFs and mutual funds may return empty results. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for selection.

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