lookupTipRanksAnalyst

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely behavioral fact beyond them — exact-match-only input with no fuzzy fallback — which tells the agent that near-miss names will fail. It does not describe the not-found/failure response or partner-data limitations, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and return payload, ending on the input constraint. The API-name parenthetical ('partner data') is minor filler but does not bloat the text.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned fields (expertUID, firm, star rating, performance metrics) and the exact-match input rule. For a single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, this is essentially complete; only failure-mode detail is missing.

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% and the single param already reads 'Analyst name, exactly as published.' The description mostly restates this, adding only the 'no fuzzy matching' clarification, so it earns the baseline 3 rather than more.

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 and resource ('look up a TipRanks analyst by name') and even names what the call returns (expertUID, firm, star rating, performance). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby sibling searchTipRanksAnalystRatings, so an agent must infer the lookup-vs-search split from the names 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?

It gives the key usage constraint ('the name must be passed exactly as published; there is no fuzzy matching') and implicitly frames the tool as a prerequisite by noting the returned expertUID is 'used by the other TipRanks tools.' It stops short of naming when to prefer it over the search/rating siblings.

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