yahoo_finance_ticker_earnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'returns... modules' without detailing whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that likely queries external data.

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 with no filler, making it concise. However, it may be too brief, lacking details that would improve its usefulness without significant added length.

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 presence of many sibling tools and no output schema, the description should explain what 'earnings modules' means and what the output contains. It does not provide this, leaving potential ambiguity in a rich tool ecosystem.

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 sole parameter 'symbol' is described in the schema with example 'AAPL'. The description adds 'for a symbol,' which confirms the parameter's purpose but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states it 'returns Yahoo Finance earnings modules for a symbol,' which provides a clear verb and resource. However, 'earnings modules' is somewhat vague and does not clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like yahoo_finance_ticker_earnings_dates or yahoo_finance_ticker_financials.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The user is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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