get_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default for months_back and the two recommendation types, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only status, rate limits, or error handling, leaving behavioral transparency partial.

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 well-structured: a concise introductory sentence followed by an Args block. While redundant in repeating parameter names from the schema, the added explanations are essential given zero schema coverage. No unnecessary filler is present.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need no description. Input parameters are thoroughly covered. The only gap is ambiguity about whether months_back applies to both recommendation types or only upgrades_downgrades, but overall the tool is well specified.

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 0%, so the Args section fully compensates. Each parameter is explained with purpose and examples ('AAPL' for ticker), allowed values for recommendation_type are listed, and months_back has its default clarified.

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 clearly states the tool fetches recommendations or upgrades/downgrades for a given ticker from Yahoo Finance, using the specific verb 'Get' and naming the resource. It explicitly lists two recommendation types, distinguishing the tool from siblings like get_stock_info or get_stock_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?

The description implies usage whenever recommendation data is needed, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. It provides parameter-level guidance (e.g., months_back default) but lacks explicit 'use this when' or alternative tool recommendations.

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