Get Analyst Grades

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read. The description adds that it returns 'recent' actions, providing temporal context. No contradictions, and the added context is valuable but could specify ordering or depth of recency.

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 sentence of 14 words that efficiently conveys purpose and output scope with no unnecessary details.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with an output schema (context indicates present), the description covers the key aspects: what actions, for which ticker, and what fields are returned. It is sufficiently complete without needing to explain return values in prose.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are adequately described in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning 'for a ticker' and the types of grades in the output.

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 gets recent analyst grade actions (upgrades, downgrades, initiations) for a ticker and lists included fields (firm, previous/new grade). It distinguishes from siblings like get_analyst_consensus and get_analyst_estimates by specifying actions.

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 use for retrieving ticker-specific analyst grade changes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_price_target, get_analyst_consensus) or provide exclusions.

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