analyst-ratings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses data source (Yahoo Finance, free, no API key) and the output fields. It could mention data freshness or rate limits, but overall adequately transparent for a simple data retrieval tool.

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 compact with four sentences, each adding value: purpose, output details, data source, and sibling relationship. No redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, output fields, data source, and complementary role. It lacks mention of rate limits or authentication, but is largely complete for its scope.

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% with a clear description of the ticker parameter. The tool description adds context about the parameter's role (returning analyst data for US equities) but does not introduce new constraints or format details, so baseline 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 provides Wall Street analyst consensus and price targets for US equities, listing specific output fields like buy/hold/sell breakdown, mean recommendation score, and price target range. It distinguishes from siblings by stating it complements us-stock-price and equity-technicals with the analyst conviction layer.

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?

It explicitly names sibling tools (us-stock-price, equity-technicals) and positions itself as a complement, providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not detail when not to use or specific prerequisites beyond the ticker parameter.

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