consensus_estimates

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the tool's best-effort nature, its reliance on press coverage rather than paid feeds, and the risk of misrepresenting the output as a true Street consensus. This is meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the most important caveat is placed immediately after the core function. Every sentence earns its place by either defining the tool or preventing misuse.

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 description clearly conveys what the tool returns, its limitations, and how the output should be framed. It does not describe the output schema or parameter usage, but the required 'context.company' is evident from the schema and the tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level guidance. There is one required nested 'context' parameter with a required 'company' field, but the description never explains how to specify the company, date, or other context fields. The tool's behavior implies a company context but does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Pulls individually-reported brokerage target prices/ratings from press coverage.' It explicitly distinguishes the tool from a real consensus feed, which prevents the natural misreading of the tool name 'consensus_estimates.'

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for "here's what a few brokerages have said"' and a clear when-not: 'never present averageTargetPrice as "the market consensus."' It also explains why, citing the lack of a paid market-data subscription.

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