Get Analyst Coverage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's role is limited. It adds that the tool provides grades, targets, and coverage breadth, but lacks details on data recency, pagination, or number of firms. It does not contradict annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get aggregated analyst coverage') and concisely explains the output. No superfluous words.

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's low complexity (one required parameter, annotations provided, output schema exists), the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and output. It does not need to detail return values since the output schema covers that.

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?

There is only one parameter (ticker) with schema description coverage at 100% (it describes the ticker symbol format). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Get aggregated analyst coverage for a ticker — consolidated view of grades, targets, and coverage breadth across covering firms.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_analyst_consensus, get_analyst_estimates, and get_analyst_grades by highlighting aggregation and breadth.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies an aggregated view but does not specify situations where this is preferred over individual analyst tools. No 'when not to use' or mention of prerequisites.

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