earnings_index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'gets' data without revealing any behavioral traits such as response format, scoping, or side effects. For a read-only tool, it does not even hint at whether it returns historical data, current values, or aggregates.

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 brief and free of filler, but it is too terse to be informative. It conveys the core action but omits crucial context, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is structurally front-loaded, but brevity here harms clarity.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining what 'index trend' means and what the response will contain. It does neither, leaving an agent uncertain about the expected result and the tool's exact scope.

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 describes 'ticker' as a 'Stock ticker' (100% coverage). The description's phrase 'for a ticker' adds no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific action ('Get') and a resource ('index trend for a ticker'), but 'index trend' is ambiguous—it could mean an earnings index trend, a stock market index trend, or something else. It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like earnings_trend or indices_quote, so its purpose is only partially clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternative tools, prerequisites, or context in which this should be preferred. The agent is left to infer usage from the vague description alone.

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