get_earnings

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the description only needs added context — and it delivers: the exact return payload shape (calendar plus recent history) and a failure-mode disclosure (non-equity symbols error out). It does not cover pagination or error shapes beyond the equity case, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded verb+resource, then a compact sentence enumerating returned fields, then the equity-only caveat. Three tight sentences with no filler; only minor room to trim the field enumeration.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only lookup with a full output schema and annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, payload contents, and the key failure mode. The only gap is sibling differentiation, which is not strictly required for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the limit bound (1-50, default 12) and the symbol format guidance (ticker or ISIN, 'use search first'), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is the expected baseline 3 when coverage is complete.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get upcoming and historical earnings for a Yahoo symbol', with the returned content spelled out (EPS estimate, reported EPS, surprise %). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings such as get_estimates or get_calendar, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent can infer this is for earnings data on equities, and the description adds a real constraint ('Equity-only: an ETF, fund or crypto symbol answers with an error'). However there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing against get_estimates/get_calendar/get_financials, which an agent would need.

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