get_earnings_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the output shows EPS estimates vs actuals and surprise percentages, but does not mention potential side effects, data source limitations, or rate limits. This is minimal but not contradictory.

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, with the purpose in one sentence and a single parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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?

The tool has a simple single-parameter interface and an output schema is present, so the description need not explain return values. It provides the essential information for selection and invocation, though it could mention use cases or data source for fuller 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?

The input schema provides only a 'ticker' string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining 'Stock ticker symbol, e.g. AAPL', adding an example and clarifying the expected format, which is helpful for the tool's single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource 'earnings history', while explicitly mentioning the content ('EPS estimates vs actuals and surprise percentages'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_income_statement or get_stock_price.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but there are no exclusions or alternative suggestions provided, so it meets only the 'implied usage' threshold.

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