getStockGradeSummary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool returns counts of rating categories, which is useful context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, content, benefit. No redundant or filler words. Front-loaded with the key action 'access an overall view'.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, read-only), the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and its use case. It could optionally mention the data format (e.g., object with counts), but the current text is adequate for agent 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?

The input schema has one parameter 'symbol' described as 'Stock symbol'. The description does not add further semantics about the parameter (e.g., format, case-sensitivity). Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline 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 a consolidated summary of analyst ratings (strong buy, buy, hold, sell, strong sell) for a stock symbol. It distinguishes from siblings like getStockGrades (which may provide individual grades) by emphasizing 'summary' and 'overall view', but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 phrase 'Quickly access an overall view' implies the tool is for quick summary retrieval, but there is no mention of scenarios where it should not be used or alternatives. Usage context is only implied.

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