Institution Rating

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

The description confirms it's a read operation (as per readOnlyHint) and details the return structure, adding context beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 short and to the point, conveying essential information in one sentence. Slightly ambiguous due to formatting but overall concise.

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 read operation with one required parameter, the description adequately explains the return structure. Missing details like error conditions but sufficient for basic use.

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?

The single parameter symbol has a clear description with an example in the schema. The description does not add much beyond the schema but is sufficient. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is high.

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 retrieves an institution rating summary for a given symbol, listing specific return fields (analyst counts, target price, consensus rating) and the instratings list. This differentiates it from sibling tools like institution_rating_detail and institution_rating_history.

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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings or other rating tools. The description explains what it does but not the context for use.

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