searchTipRanksAnalystRatings

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the exact row shape (analyst, firm, recommendation, price target, action, originating article), 'newest first' ordering, and the fact that this is partner-sourced data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then row content, then filters. Efficient overall, though 'sourced from TipRanks with the FMP Analyst Ratings Search API (partner data)' has slight redundancy between the two source phrases.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully compensates by describing the returned fields and ordering. With 7 fully documented params and safety handled by annotations, the definition is nearly complete, lacking only pagination/limit expectations for a tool with a 5000-row cap.

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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters and the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates three of the filters (symbol, expertUID, date range) without adding syntax or defaults beyond what the schema already says, and omits mention of page, limit, and nonadjusted.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (individual analyst ratings sourced from TipRanks), and even enumerates the returned fields and sort order. It implies differentiation from the TipRanks point-in-time/summary siblings by calling these 'individual' ratings, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 names the available filters (symbol, expertUID, date range), which implies when to reach for this tool, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and does not route the agent to a sibling such as getTipRanksPointInTimeRatingsBySymbol.

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