get_earnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses ordering ('newest first'), content (reported results and forecast), and timing relative to annual reports. However, it does not mention output format, pagination behavior, or any operational constraints such as rate limits or authentication, leaving some behavioral uncertainty for a read tool without annotation support.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states what the tool does and its output ordering; the second sentence provides timing context and the sibling alternative. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description offers some return-value context by mentioning that results include reported figures and management forecasts, plus ordering. It does not describe the exact response shape, but the simple list semantics and well-documented parameters make this a minor gap. Overall it is reasonably complete for selecting and invoking the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get a company's quarterly earnings releases'), and specifies ordering ('newest first') and content ('reported results and management's own forecast'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_financials by noting that earnings releases arrive before the annual report. This is a clear, differentiating statement.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'use this for the latest numbers' because earnings releases arrive weeks before the annual report. It also names the alternative, get_financials, for the 'audited long-run series'. This gives an agent an actionable decision rule.

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