getHistoricalRatings

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds value by indicating it provides historical data with key financial metric scores, but it doesn't detail pagination or date selection (since no date parameter exists).

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 simple parameter set (2 params, 1 required) and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and data type. However, it omits how historical dates are selected (only limit is available), which may leave ambiguity for the agent.

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 are described in the input schema). The description reiterates 'stock symbols' and 'optional limit on number of results' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 historical financial ratings for stock symbols, with a verb ('track changes' or 'view') and resource ('ratings'). However, it does not differentiate from nearby sibling tools like getHistoricalStockGrades or getRatingsSnapshot, which may serve similar purposes.

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 implies usage for tracking financial performance over time, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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