Get analyst upgrades/downgrades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context about the 90-day window and the breakdown of action types, but does not mention return format, pagination, or data boundaries. This is acceptable but not rich behavior disclosure.

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, both informative: the first states what the tool returns, the second adds the nuance of use. Nothing extraneous, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter schema and read-only annotation, the description covers the essential time window, action types, and usage context. With no output schema, it doesn't detail return formatting, but the description is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'ticker' parameter, and the description only mentions 'for a ticker.' It implicitly conveys that ticker is the stock symbol, but provides no format examples or validation hints. The parameter is simple and obvious, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's property name.

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 it returns 'recent analyst rating changes' including 'upgrades, downgrades, reiterations, and initiations,' with a '90-day action breakdown.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyst estimates and price targets by emphasizing momentum in sentiment vs. static consensus.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to see the direction of sell-side revisions (momentum in sentiment), not just the static consensus,' providing a clear when-to-use context. It doesn't name specific sibling alternatives but the contrast with static consensus implies a differentiation from consensus-type tools.

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