get_screener_analysts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get analyst rating screener', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or whether it returns a list or single item. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient phrase with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of analysts, ratings, or screening criteria), which is crucial for an agent to use it correctly. With no structured data to rely on, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and output.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 as it doesn't have to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 'Get analyst rating screener' specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('analyst rating screener'), but it's vague about what exactly is being retrieved—whether it's a list of analysts, their ratings, or a screening tool. It doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like 'get_screener_stocks' or 'get_screener_option_contracts', which also involve screening but for different data types.

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 versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_screener_stocks' and 'get_screener_option_contracts', the description doesn't clarify if this is for analyst-specific data or how it relates to other screening tools, leaving usage context implied at best.

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