get_earnings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses return contents, edge cases (empty for non-equities), and input constraints. It could mention error behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only data tool, the provided transparency is above average.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence provides distinct value: purpose, symbol constraints, return details, and equity-only limitation. No fluff or repetition.

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 rich input schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: usage constraints, return contents, and exclusions. It is complete for an earnings retrieval tool.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the symbol format rules but adds no new meaning for 'limit'. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get upcoming and historical earnings for a Yahoo symbol.' It further specifies the exact data returned (earnings calendar with EPS estimate, reported EPS, surprise %) and recent earnings history, making it distinct from siblings like get_estimates or get_calendar.

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 practical usage guidance: symbols must be native Yahoo tickers (not ISIN/WKN/name), resolve via search first, and it's equity-only (empty for ETFs, funds, crypto). It lacks explicit naming of alternative tools for non-earnings data, but the context is clear and includes exclusions.

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