getTipRanksAnalystSummary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. On top of that the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: the aggregation scope (every recommendation over a window, not a point-in-time snapshot), the inclusion of price-target track record, and the default window of trailing twelve months when dates are omitted.

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 core action and scope, then the default behavior. The only mild waste is vendor branding ('FMP Ratings Summary by Analyst API (TipRanks partner data)'), which does not help an agent decide or invoke.

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 read-only, three-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description conveys what is returned (recommendation rollup plus price-target track record) and the default time window, which is enough to call it correctly. It stops short of describing the response shape or behavior for an unknown expertUID, but those gaps are minor.

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 description coverage is 100%, with expertUID, from_date and to each documented, including the pointer to lookupTipRanksAnalyst. The description only adds the default value for the date window, which is marginally useful but does not go beyond the schema's parameter documentation. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource: an aggregated rollup of every recommendation issued by a single analyst over a date window, plus their price-target track record. The 'one analyst' / 'aggregated rollup' framing implicitly separates it from symbol- and firm-level siblings, but it never names the closest alternative (getTipRanksPointInTimeRatingsByAnalyst), so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by scope (analyst-level historical rollup), and the description notes the window defaults to trailing twelve months. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not contrast against lookupTipRanksAnalyst (the prerequisite for obtaining expertUID) or the point-in-time analyst ratings sibling.

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