Veroq

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses behavioral traits by stating 'COST: 2 credits' (rate limiting) and 'RETURNS: Next earnings date...' (output structure). This compensates well for the lack of output schema and annotations, though it could mention data freshness or error conditions.

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 uses clear structural headers (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE) making it highly scannable. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by contextual metadata.

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 tool has only 1 parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description provides adequate compensation by explicitly documenting the return values and credit cost. For a simple lookup tool, this is complete enough to be invoked correctly, though edge case handling isn't documented.

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 has 100% description coverage ('Ticker symbol (e.g. AAPL, NVDA, GOOGL)'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds an example ('EXAMPLE: { "symbol": "NVDA" }') which reinforces usage but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opening sentence uses specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('next earnings date, EPS estimates, and revenue estimates') for a stock ticker. Among siblings like veroq_ticker_news or veroq_ticker_price, this clearly distinguishes itself as the specific tool for earnings calendar and estimate 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 explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section provides clear positive guidance ('To check when a company reports earnings and what the Street expects. Useful before earnings season'). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the contextual guidance effectively signals when this tool is appropriate versus other market data tools.

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