get_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. It does not disclose that this is likely a read-only operation, any rate limits, or data freshness. The tool's behavior is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 concise sentence without extraneous words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include critical usage context without losing conciseness.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, pagination, or how the 'months_back' parameter interacts with other tools. The tool feels incomplete for effective selection.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'for a stock' which reinforces the schema's required 'symbol'. However, the enum values for 'recommendation_type' are only partially explained in the schema description, and the description does not clarify the missing 'recommendations_summary' option.

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 'Get analyst recommendations for a stock', specifying the verb (Get) and resource (analyst recommendations). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_analyst_price_targets', which could be confused with recommendations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'get_analyst_price_targets' or other financial data tools. There is no mention of prerequisite knowledge or context.

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