Analyst Forecasts

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that data is available by quarterly/annual periods and includes an actuals-versus-estimates comparison, though it does not describe output formatting.

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, roughly 30 words, with the resource and metrics front-loaded in the first sentence and the use case in the second. There is no filler or repetition of structured information.

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 (read-only, 3 alias parameters, no output schema), the description covers what is returned (metrics, periods, comparison) and why it matters. The schema handles parameter aliases and annotations handle safety, leaving only a minor gap around the ambiguous symbol requirement.

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 already documents all three parameters (symbol, ticker, identifier) with full descriptions and 100% coverage, including the alias relationship, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The 'REQUIRED' marker in the symbol description versus the required-parameter count of 0 is a schema inconsistency, but the description contributes nothing beyond 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?

Description opens with the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'analyst forecasts', then lists the exact metrics covered (EPS, revenue, EBITDA, net income, ROA, ROE, price). The 'actuals vs estimates comparison' distinguishes this from actuals-only siblings like get_financials, so an agent can identify the correct tool.

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 last sentence gives a concrete use case: 'useful for understanding market expectations and earnings surprises.' This tells an agent when to prefer the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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