veroq_earnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost (2 credits), return values, and an example. However, it does not mention error behavior, data freshness, or required authentication. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 very concise: a single sentence for purpose, followed by clearly labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE). Each sentence adds value and is front-loaded. 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage context, return values, cost, and an example. The agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 covers the single parameter 'symbol' with a clear description and examples. The description adds an example ({'symbol': 'NVDA'}) which reinforces usage but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score 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?

Purpose is clearly stated: 'Get next earnings date, EPS estimates, and revenue estimates for a stock ticker.' The verb 'Get' and specific resources (earnings date, EPS, revenue) make it clear. While no explicit sibling differentiation is in the description, the tool's focus on earnings distinguishes it from siblings like veroq_ticker_price or veroq_ticker_analysis.

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 includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section: 'To check when a company reports earnings and what the Street expects. Useful before earnings season.' This provides clear context for usage. However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, hence a 4.

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