Institution Rating Industry Rank

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that results are paginated and lists specific output fields, which is useful but does not go beyond what annotations already provide. No contradictions.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences and a short fragment. No wasted words. All information is front-loaded, starting with the primary action and output format.

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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers inputs (via schema), outputs (listed fields), and pagination behavior. It could mention the industry context (how industry is determined from symbol) but is otherwise complete for a simple data retrieval 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 clear descriptions for symbol, page, and size. The tool description mentions 'Paginated' but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The default values (page=1, size=20) are already in the schema.

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 returns peers ranked by institution analyst ratings, specifying the output fields (symbol, name, buy_count, sell_count, consensus_rating, target_price). It distinguishes from sibling tools like industry_peers and institution_rating by focusing on industry ranking based on 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as industry_peers or institution_rating. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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