Institution Rating Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe and idempotent. The description adds that it returns historical data and the return structure, but no additional behavioral caveats (e.g., rate limits, authentication) are mentioned.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and return format. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the simple tool with 1 required parameter, 100% schema coverage, and an existing output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention date range or pagination, but it is largely 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'symbol' with a clear description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond referencing the return structure, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed historical institution ratings and target price history', and includes the return structure. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'institution_rating' which likely provides current ratings.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context for when-not to use it or mention of prerequisites, which is important given the many sibling tools with similar names.

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