get_analyst_consensus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned data fields (counts, upside %, 6-period change, average target price) and BIST coverage, which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about data freshness, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's return content, with no wasted words. The second sentence adds coverage context efficiently.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows what it gets back. For a simple read-only, one-parameter lookup this is nearly complete, with only freshness/auth behavior left unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents symbol format with examples (THYAO.IS, AAPL, NVDA). The description adds no further parameter meaning, which matches the baseline-3 expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (return analyst consensus for a stock) and enumerates exactly what it contains: strong buy/buy/hold/sell counts, upside %, change over the last 6 periods, and average target price. This clearly separates it from sibling data tools like get_fundamentals or get_earnings_info, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 never states when to use this tool versus alternatives, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint is the note that BIST stocks also carry Turkish brokerage-firm data, which is coverage information rather than usage guidance.

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