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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral details, but it only states it's a scoreboard and free. No mention of read-only nature, required permissions, or what data is affected.

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 (two short phrases), but this comes at the cost of essential information. It is not overly verbose, but it sacrifices usefulness for brevity.

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 has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to describe the output format, what the scoreboard contains, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 0%, so the description should explain the parameter. It implies filingId refers to a filing identifier but doesn't specify format, source, or example, adding minimal value beyond the schema.

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 'Post-earnings scoreboard for a filing' indicates the tool provides a scoreboard related to earnings after a filing, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_estimates or leaderboard. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'retrieve') and could be clearer.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ai_thesis or ticker_consensus. The mention of 'Free' hints at no cost but does not help with selection context.

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