Analyst Consensus

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and safe operations. The description adds that it returns 'upcoming periods,' which clarifies the temporal scope. No contradictions. Additional details like pagination or data limits would raise the score further.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently states the purpose and includes the return structure. No fluff; every part of the sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the action.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains what the tool returns and the time horizon. Could be improved by mentioning any common constraints (e.g., availability by market), but overall complete.

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 includes the symbol parameter with an example. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what is already captured in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('financial consensus estimates'), and explicitly lists the returned fields (period, revenue_estimate, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like 'forecast_eps' or 'institutional_views' which have different output structures.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., forecast_eps). The context is implied by the return fields, but there is no direct statement like 'Use to get aggregate analyst estimates for a stock.' A clear context statement would improve this.

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