Get analyst estimates

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that by noting that some future periods may have null estimates until coverage fills in, and by clarifying the response structure under `data` and `count`.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and a caveat. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (data with per-fiscal-period fields and count) and notes null estimates. It could mention units or format details, but for a simple single-parameter tool, this is reasonably 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 schema has only one parameter, ticker, with no description (0% coverage). The description merely repeats 'for a ticker' without adding format, examples, or further meaning, so it does not compensate for the missing schema description.

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 provides sell-side analyst forward estimates for a ticker, and specifies the exact data fields (EPS and revenue averages/high/low, analyst count) per fiscal period. This is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like analyst_price_targets and analyst_changes.

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 explicitly says 'Use for consensus expectations and dispersion,' providing a clear use case. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the positive guidance is enough to count as clear context without exclusions.

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