Analyst ratings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the data type (ratings and price targets) but does not explain the meaning of 'recent,' the range of rating actions (e.g., upgrades/downgrades), or any limitations. The tool's read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It states the core functionality but omits useful context like the time period of 'recent' or the nature of 'rating actions.' Given the tool's simplicity, this is a marginal score; more detail would improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100% as the only parameter 'ticker' is described. The description adds no additional parameter information, but given the high coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No extra semantics are needed for a single well-documented parameter.

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 provides 'Recent analyst rating actions and price targets for a ticker,' which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like godel_quote (current price) and godel_financials (fundamentals). It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get,' but the noun-phrase description is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, preferred contexts, or comparisons to sibling tools. The description only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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