get_analyst_ratings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only operation and summarizes the returned content, but it does not mention data source, freshness, coverage caveats, or error behavior. It is neither misleading nor rich.

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 compact and well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded and separate Args/Returns sections. There is no redundant or filler language.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose, argument semantics, and return summary. It is slightly incomplete regarding edge cases or data freshness, but not critically so.

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 only names the 'ticker' parameter, while the description adds meaningful semantics: it labels it as a stock symbol and provides concrete examples such as 'AAPL' and 'MSFT'. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 gets analyst ratings and price targets for a stock. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_quote or get_financials by naming a distinct resource and output type.

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 use when a stock's analyst consensus or price targets are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling comparison or exclusionary guidance is provided.

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