get_analyst_ratings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the return metrics (consensus rating, target prices, etc.) and includes notes that analysts' opinions are not guarantees. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, data freshness, or whether the tool is read-only.

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 well-structured with sections but is quite verbose. Sections like 'Why It Matters' and 'Important Notes' are somewhat extraneous for tool selection. Could be more concise while retaining key 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the returned data. Parameter count is low and well-covered. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'symbol' parameter with examples ('AAPL', 'MSFT') and notes about availability for widely-covered US stocks. The 'symbols' parameter is also briefly described.

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's purpose: track analyst recommendations, price targets, and consensus changes. It lists key metrics and use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_quote' or 'get_earnings_calendar' by focusing on analyst sentiment.

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 provides example use cases and 'Why It Matters,' but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, though the context is somewhat implied by the examples.

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