get_earnings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it implies this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, error conditions, or what format the earnings data returns. The output schema exists but isn't described in the text, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences followed by parameter documentation. The front-loaded purpose statement earns its place, and the parameter explanations are useful. Minor formatting issues with indentation don't significantly impact readability.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but other gaps remain for a financial data tool.

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 description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema. While schema description coverage is 0%, the description explains that 'symbol' represents a stock symbol with examples (AAPL, MSFT) and clarifies that 'period' can be 'quarterly' or 'annual' with a default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Get quarterly or annual earnings data.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('earnings data') with period qualification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_income_statement' or 'get_company_overview' which might also provide financial data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or explain what makes earnings data distinct from other financial metrics available through other tools on the server. The agent receives no contextual usage information.

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