get_estimate_revisions

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

The description adds behavioral context such as the data source ('hosted estimates API backed by the monthly collection job') and default behavior for omitted 'fiscal_date'. Without annotations, these details are valuable for understanding data freshness and default handling.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, data source, and default behavior. Minor omission: could mention data ordering or pagination, but overall adequate for a simple retrieval 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining that omitting 'fiscal_date' defaults to the nearest upcoming fiscal period, which is not in the schema description.

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 the tool 'Get[s] estimate revision history for one ticker and fiscal period.' It specifies the verb, resource, and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'screen_estimate_revisions' which likely screen across multiple entities.

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 implies usage for a specific ticker and period but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it mention alternatives beyond the implied distinction from screening tools.

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