getHistoricalRatings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds that the payload is ratings plus metric scores tied to dates, but says nothing about ordering, history depth, or how a large date span is returned — with annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate rather than rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, but the second largely restates the first ('provides access to historical financial ratings' versus 'track changes in financial performance') and carries filler such as 'in our database' and 'with the FMP Historical Ratings API'. It is not bloated, but about a third of the text does no work.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the data is but omits how ratings change over time are actually queried (default limit of 1 means a single date's rating by default, which is a meaningful behavioral fact left unstated). An agent could call it, but might not realize it needs to raise limit to see a history.

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%: both symbol and limit (with default 1 and max 10000) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the vague 'specific dates', and notably neither schema nor description tells the agent how to request a date range at all.

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 names a concrete resource (historical financial ratings for a stock symbol) and states that it covers ratings plus key financial metric scores for specific dates, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not distinguish itself from near-siblings such as getRatingsSnapshot, getFinancialScores, or getHistoricalStockGrades, so an agent cannot route between them from this text alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to pick this over getRatingsSnapshot (current ratings) or getFinancialScores. The phrase 'over time' and 'specific dates' implies a historical use case, but no alternative is named and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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