Get Earnings

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals significant behavioral nuances: the tool explicitly flags whether a date is confirmed or estimated, explains that both can look identical, and describes the SEC 8-K verification process. This adds critical context for interpreting results.

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 three focused paragraphs: outputs, the critical caveat, and the verification method. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (confirmed vs estimated) is front-loaded.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main outputs (earnings date, EPS estimates/actuals, confirmation status) and explains the underlying process. It does not specify the exact return format, but the core functionality is well contextualized.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description briefly mentions SEC confirmation but does not explain the effect of setting confirm_with_sec to false, leaving a small semantic gap that the schema's parameter description already partially covers.

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 function: providing next earnings date, historical EPS estimates vs actuals, and crucially distinguishing confirmed vs estimated dates. This is specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_company_financials or get_news.

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 when to use the tool by highlighting the problem with Yahoo's estimated dates and the importance of SEC confirmation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly signals the use case for reliable earnings dates.

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