get_analyst_actions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, which is honest, but the description does not disclose details such as whether results are recent or historical, how they are ordered, or what the response shape looks like.

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 a single well-formed sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds useful meaning, and the core resource is stated immediately.

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?

This is a simple retrieval tool with one required parameter and a schema that covers symbol, so the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks details about return format, limit semantics, and how this tool differs from closely related analyst-focused siblings, leaving some ambiguity for an 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 description coverage is only 50%: symbol is documented in the schema, but limit only has type/constraints and no natural-language meaning. The description does not mention or clarify either parameter, so it adds no parameter-level value beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource and action: analyst upgrades, downgrades, and price-target changes. It is clear enough to identify the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like get_analyst_forecast or get_recommendation_trend.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_analyst_forecast or get_recommendation_trend. The intended use is only implied by the description, so an agent gets no explicit routing help.

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