Get Analyst Coverage

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. However, beyond being read-only, the description lacks additional behavioral context such as data freshness, pagination, or whether it requires specific permissions. Given the annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 conveys all essential information without any wasted words. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 low parameter count (1), existence of an output schema, and the description's mention of the return contents (grades, targets, coverage breadth), the tool is well-covered. Minor gap: no mention of the output schema's structure, but the output schema exists to provide that. A score of 4 reflects good completeness for a simple 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?

The input schema has only one parameter (ticker) with a complete description in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 it returns aggregated analyst coverage for a ticker, including grades, targets, and coverage breadth. It distinguishes itself from sibling analyst tools like get_analyst_consensus and get_analyst_estimates by specifying a consolidated view.

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 implies usage for a broad overview of analyst coverage, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_analyst_grades or get_analyst_estimates. No exclusion criteria or context is provided.

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