earnings_history

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it retrieves earnings history but does not describe the return format, whether it is a time series, the default time range, or any limitations such as pagination. This is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant words. It efficiently states the tool's purpose, making it easy to scan.

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 presence of overlapping sibling tools (earnings_trend, earnings_report, etc.) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. An agent cannot determine what 'history' includes (e.g., quarterly vs. annual, timeframe, granularity) nor what the result shape is, making successful invocation uncertain.

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 already documents the single parameter 'ticker' with a description 'Stock ticker', achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 resource ('earnings history') and identifies the required ticker parameter, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like earnings_trend, earnings_report, or earnings_transcript, so agents must infer which one is appropriate from the name alone.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on choosing between earnings_history and the many other earnings-related tools.

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