get_earnings_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what data is retrieved but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns historical vs real-time data, or error conditions. 'Get' implies read-only, but this isn't explicitly confirmed.

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 extremely concise at 6 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every element ('earnings history', 'estimates', 'surprises') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'estimates and surprises' means in practice, return format, time range covered, or data sources. For a financial data tool with behavioral unknowns, this leaves significant gaps.

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 no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the baseline is 3 since the schema documents the ticker parameter minimally. The description doesn't compensate by explaining ticker format, valid values, or examples.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'earnings history', specifying it includes 'estimates and surprises'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_financial_statements or get_price_history by focusing on earnings data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible earnings-related tools that might exist.

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 prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare with siblings like get_financial_statements which might overlap. The agent must infer usage based on the name alone.

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