get_earnings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does clarify that the tool returns EPS and revenue data, both actual and estimated, which is useful. However, it does not describe output structure, time ranges, forecast horizon, formatting, or any fetch limitations, leaving notable gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema, and the description does state the core return content (EPS and revenue, actual vs estimate). Still, it omits details like how far back history goes, what forecast periods are covered, and whether the output is formatted per share or totals. The overlap with sibling forecast/trend tools also weakens completeness.

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?

There is only one parameter, symbol, and the schema already documents it with an example ('Ticker, e.g. NVDA'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies given the high schema description coverage.

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 resource ('earnings history and forecasts') and the specific metrics ('EPS and revenue, actual vs estimate'), which goes beyond a vague 'get earnings'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as get_analyst_forecast or get_earnings_trend, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the overlapping sibling tools get_analyst_forecast or get_earnings_trend. The description implies usage when earnings history or forecasts are needed, but it provides no exclusions, conditions, or alternative routing, leaving selection somewhat ambiguous for an AI agent.

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