get_earnings_history

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 discloses that the tool returns up to 50 reports and includes key data fields. It implies read-only historical access, which is appropriate for a data retrieval tool. Could explicitly state 'read-only' for clarity.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, includes usage guidance, and example queries. 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the data fields returned (EPS estimates, actuals, surprises, dates). For a simple data retrieval tool with 1 parameter, this is complete and sufficient.

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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (ticker, max_entries) with defaults and constraints. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond noting the 50-entry limit already in the schema. Given schema coverage, a score 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 clearly states the tool retrieves historical quarterly earnings results with specific data points (EPS estimates, actuals, surprises, dates). It distinguishes this tool from sibling 'get_nasdaq_earnings_calendar' by focusing on historical data rather than upcoming events.

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 lists when to use the tool (e.g., earnings beats/misses, consistency, trends) and provides example queries. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear and differentiates from sibling tools.

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