konsensus_analiz

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output metrics (average/median/high/low, AL/TUT/SAT distribution, consensus score range, standard deviation) and the dependency on previously downloaded reports. This goes beyond basic safety traits and gives useful behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: an imperative first sentence, followed by a clear bullet list of outputs. No filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are handled. The description covers the input context (downloaded reports), the optional parameter behavior (via schema), and the main output components. It could mention edge cases like missing reports, but given the output schema and simple input, it is largely complete.

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 covers the only parameter (hisse_kodu) with a description and example, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 a specific verb and resource: "Tüm aracı kurumların hedef fiyatlarını çapraz karşılaştır ve konsensüs skoru üret" (cross-compare all brokerages' target prices and generate a consensus score). It distinguishes itself from siblings like rapor_indir (which downloads reports) and sapma_analizi_raporu (which analyzes deviations) by focusing on consensus synthesis.

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 gives clear context by mentioning "İndirilen raporlardaki hedef fiyatları sentezleyerek" (synthesizing target prices from downloaded reports), implying it should be used after downloading reports. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full guidelines.

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