Institution Rating Industry Rank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond restating the function. It does not disclose pagination behavior, data freshness, or any constraints beyond what annotations imply.

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 of 13 words, completely front-loaded with the core purpose. No extraneous information is present; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description adequately states the tool's purpose but fails to describe the output format or behavior (e.g., what fields are in the ranked list). Without an output schema, more detail would improve completeness for an agent selecting this tool.

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 all parameters (symbol, page, size) described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. No additional context about parameter constraints or defaults is given.

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 function: 'Get peers ranked by institution analyst ratings within the same industry as the given security.' It specifies the verb (Get), resource (peers ranked by ratings), and scope (same industry), distinguishing it from sibling tools like institution_rating or institution_rating_detail.

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 context (ranking peers in same industry) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like institution_rating or institution_rating_detail. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on name and context.

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