Earnings

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description adds real value by disclosing the equity-only restriction and the resulting error, plus the returned fields (EPS estimate, reported EPS, surprise %). It stops short of describing pagination or limit interaction.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, return content second, constraint third. No filler, and all content earns its place, though the return-detail sentence partly overlaps the output schema.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema and annotation coverage, the description is essentially complete; the equity-only caveat is a helpful addition. Since return values are already captured by the output schema, the description need not do more.

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 coverage is 100%, so both 'symbol' and 'limit' are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that a Yahoo symbol is expected but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('upcoming and historical earnings') for a Yahoo symbol, making the tool's function immediately clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like 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 implied by the resource name rather than stated. It notes the equity-only constraint (ETF/fund/crypto returns an error), which is useful, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives vs get_estimates/get_calendar.

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