Get analyst price targets

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation, and the description adds behavioral detail by specifying the consensus block fields (avgTarget, highTarget, lowTarget, numAnalysts) and the existence of underlying data. This goes beyond the annotations' safety hint.

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 with a clear front-loaded statement and then the usage context. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized.

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 simple one-parameter tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about the return structure (consensus block and data) and purpose. However, it doesn't explain the contents of the data array or possible edge cases, so it's not fully 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 one required string parameter, ticker, with no description (0% coverage). The description only rephrases 'ticker' without adding format details, examples, or additional semantics, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema information.

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 provides analyst price targets for a ticker, including a consensus block with specific fields. It also includes the purpose of gauging upside/downside and target dispersion, which differentiates it from sibling tools like analyst estimates or 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 gives a clear use case: 'Use to gauge implied upside/downside vs the current price and the dispersion of targets.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions.

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