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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint:true, so safety is covered. The description adds that the output is a qualitative narrative ('what surprised, what worried, what management announced'), which gives context about the return type. However, it does not disclose details like whether it returns text or structured fields, or any potential limitations (e.g., dependency on analyst notes). Given the annotation already covers read-only nature, the description adds moderate value beyond that.

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 a single sentence that is concise and informative. It front-loads the core purpose ('Pogłębione omówienie' - in-depth discussion) and lists the key aspects (surprises, concerns, management announcements). There is no wasted wording. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., mention of inputs) but it remains efficient.

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?

For a simple read-only getter with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the qualitative nature of the response but does not explain the exact return format or how to interpret the output. Given the presence of many similar sibling tools (e.g., get_company_analysis, get_daily_brief), an agent may need more explicit guidance on what distinguishes this deepdive from others. However, the schema handles parameter clarity, and the tool is straightforward, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Each parameter (limit, symbol, quarter, symbols) is described in the schema. The description focuses on the tool's purpose, not on parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema completeness.

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 what the tool does: it provides an in-depth discussion of a quarterly earnings report, highlighting surprises, concerns, and management guidance. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_earnings_calendar (calendar of dates) and get_quarterly_kpis (quantitative KPIs). It is specific about the resource (quarterly report) and the nature of the output (qualitative deepdive). No explicit mention of symbol/quarter, but the parameter schema covers that, so overall purpose is clear.

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 usage for when a deeper qualitative analysis of earnings is needed, as opposed to just data. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_report_event or get_company_analysis. There is no direct guidance on when not to use it or what edge cases it serves. The intended use is inferred from the phrasing but not stated explicitly.

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