Institution Rating Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool returns historical data including target prices, which aligns with annotations. No contradictions; the added behavioral context is minimal but sufficient with the existing 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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without any redundant or extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, output schema present, strong annotations), the description is sufficiently complete. It could optionally mention time range limitations or result size, but that is not essential due to the output schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter ('symbol') fully described. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the informational load.

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 clearly states the resource: 'detailed historical institution ratings and target price history'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'institution_rating' (likely simpler) and 'institution_rating_history' (possibly less detailed), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 such as 'institution_rating' or 'institution_rating_history'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints for an AI agent to decide between them.

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