get_analyst_view

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 discloses the type of data returned (consensus, targets, trend, earnings) but does not mention any caveats like data freshness, latency, or whether the results are read-only (though 'get' implies it). The description adds value by specifying the output content, but it doesn't go beyond what the name suggests in terms of behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists all key data points. It has no superfluous words and is well-structured for quick parsing. The use of commas and 'with' to link related items creates a clear flow. It earns high marks for 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 there is no output schema, the description serves as the sole specification of return values. It comprehensively lists the major components of the analyst view, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will get. The only minor gap is the lack of detail on which symbol is used, but that is covered by the parameter name. Overall, the description is nearly complete for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 0% and the description does not mention the 'symbol' parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory in a stock tool context, the rubric requires the description to compensate for low schema coverage. The description fails to add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond its name, which is a gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 consensus (buy/hold/sell), price targets with upside, recommendation trend, and earnings dates with EPS estimates and surprises. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_stock_quote or get_financials, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'. The resource is clearly identified through the content list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With 22 sibling tools, the absence of usage context forces the agent to infer the tool's role solely from the content, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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