get_eps_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it retrieves EPS history, implying a read operation, but lacks details on data freshness, error handling, or any 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 three lines: a clear purpose sentence, then structured Args and Returns. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema and a single required parameter, the description covers purpose, parameter, and return type. It is complete for a simple retrieval, but could mention handling of invalid tickers or historical depth.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the tool description includes an Args section defining 'ticker (str): The symbol of the security.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type and title, though it could give format examples.

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 it 'Retrieve EPS (Earnings Per Share) history for a given ticker.' The verb is specific, the resource is defined, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_eps_trends (estimates) or get_history (generic history).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_eps_trends or get_earnings_estimates. The description only states what it does, without context for selection.

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