yfinance_get_analyst_estimates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope of data (consensus estimates, trends, etc.) but discloses no additional behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or the behavior of the 'sections' parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that efficiently lists the key data types covered. No filler, no redundancy, and it directly conveys the tool's scope.

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?

The structured schema (3 params with 100% coverage), annotations (read-only, idempotent), and presence of an output schema cover safety and parameters. The description sufficiently conveys the core purpose, but lacks usage alternatives, keeping it just below the top tier.

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 description coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline of 3. The description lists content areas that map to the 'sections' parameter, but adds no new meaning about the 'symbol' or 'max_rows' parameters beyond what the schema already details.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as analyst estimates, listing key content areas (consensus estimates, EPS/revenue trends, revisions, recommendations, earnings history). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like price targets or news, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., yfinance_get_analyst_price_targets, yfinance_get_upgrades_downgrades) but no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are offered.

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