get_earnings

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: limit counts upcoming and past dates together with newest-first ordering, markdown is the default with JSON opt-in, and symbols without earnings (ETFs, indices) return a short message rather than erroring. It stops short of describing error behavior for invalid tickers or any rate/coverage limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 with what is returned, then when to use it, then sibling routing, then a return-format note — a logical order with no filler sentences. Slightly dense parentheticals in the opening sentence cost a point, but every paragraph carries distinct information.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it still flags the output format toggle and the empty-result case. For a three-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret an unusual result is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by clarifying a real ambiguity the schema leaves open — that limit applies to upcoming and past dates combined, and results are ordered newest first. Ticker and response_format semantics are left to the schema, which is reasonable.

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 resource and what it returns: next earnings date with days-until, consensus EPS and revenue range, historical EPS estimate/reported/surprise %, plus next ex-dividend date. The scope (one stock) and the boundary against siblings are clear enough that an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit situations to use it (before opening/holding through earnings, checking beat/miss track record, 'when does X report') and names three alternatives with the condition that selects each: get_analyst_estimates for forward estimates by period, get_earnings_calendar for a date-range sweep, get_financial_statements for full statements. No inference required.

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