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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds rich behavioral detail: how closed periods are marked, how revenue/EPS guidance includes actuals once comparable XBRL facts exist, the non-GAAP comparison rule, and coverage notes distinguishing unprocessed documents. This transparency goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 yet information-dense, front-loading the primary purpose and then efficiently covering ordering, period marking, comparison rules, and coverage notes. No redundant sentences; each clause earns its place.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description provides a thorough explanation of the returned content: source types, ordering, period status, comparison behavior, and coverage classification. This suffices for an agent to invoke correctly and interpret results.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter 'ticker' with an example and type, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, which is unnecessary given the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 retrieves company guidance from Item 2.02 earnings releases and transcripts, newest first, with specific attributes like range, unit, GAAP basis, fiscal period, and provenance. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings such as GetEarningsBrief or GetFinancialFact.

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 implies the tool is for guidance data from written earnings releases and call transcripts, and notes nuances like non-GAAP never being compared to GAAP actuals. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it, relying on the detailed purpose to guide selection.

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