get_earnings

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 states the tool returns earnings calendar and history, and behaves differently for non-equity instruments. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only (though 'get' implies it) or mention any auth, rate limits, or side effects.

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 at three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return details, and equity constraint. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 two parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (earnings calendar and history) and the scope (equity-only). It could mention pagination or limitations of the limit parameter, but the schema already provides min/max. For its complexity, the description is nearly complete.

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 the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not elaborate on 'limit' behavior or 'symbol' format). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not subtract value but also does not enhance 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 clearly states 'Get upcoming and historical earnings for a Yahoo symbol', specifying the verb ('get') and resource ('earnings'). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is equity-only and empty for ETFs, funds, and crypto, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like get_financials 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 a clear usage context ('equity-only, empty for ETFs, funds, and crypto'), which helps the agent decide when to apply the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives to prefer, such as comparing with get_estimates or get_historical for dividends.

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