get_earnings_trend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output composition (estimates, growth, revisions), but it omits details such as the number of quarters covered, how revisions are computed, and the response shape. Acceptable but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with a colon-separated list of included data. Every word contributes and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent what kind of data will be returned and names the key fields. It only lacks explicit response formatting or periodicity details, which are minor for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, symbol, is already fully documented in the schema with a 100% coverage and an example. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get quarterly earnings estimate trend', and it enumerates the content (EPS/revenue estimates, growth, recent revisions). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_earnings, get_analyst_forecast, and get_recommendation_trend.

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 intended use is implied by the resource name and content, but the description does not state when to use this tool versus get_analyst_forecast, get_earnings, or other siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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