yfinance_get_analyst_price_targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context by disclosing that analyst coverage and available fields vary by symbol, and by enumerating the exact return fields. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies potential variability.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the main purpose in one sentence, then uses a bullet list to clearly present return fields. Every sentence and bullet earns its place with no redundant 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?

The tool is simple with a single well-documented parameter and output schema present. The description covers the return fields and adds a variability caveat, which is sufficient for the agent to understand behavior. Minor edge cases (e.g., missing coverage) are not explicitly detailed, but the variability warning implies them, so this is near-complete.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter 'symbol' with examples and a clear description (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('current price and analyst consensus price targets'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_upgrades_downgrades that focus on analyst recommendations. This is a clear and unambiguous purpose.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, and while the sibling list implies different use cases (e.g., upgrades/downgrades for analyst actions), no direct comparisons or exclusions are provided. Guidance is only implied at best.

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