get_analyst_forecast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It only says 'Get...' and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the data is a snapshot or historical, whether the symbol must already be synced, possible errors, or source limitations.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and then lists the key output elements, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable picture of the return content but does not explain how this fits among the many analyst-related siblings or what behavioral assumptions hold. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 the single 'symbol' parameter already documented as 'Ticker, e.g. NVDA'. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('analyst forecast'), and concrete outputs (consensus, buy/hold/sell counts, price targets). This is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar siblings like get_recommendation_trend or get_analyst_actions.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large sibling list contains overlapping tools such as get_analyst_actions and get_recommendation_trend, the absence of selection criteria leaves the agent to infer usage.

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