get_stock_eps

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by specifying data origin (local database) and returned metrics (EPS, YoY), but does not disclose edge cases like missing data or rate limits.

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 concise Chinese sentences, front-loading the action and purpose without extraneous words. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 simple data retrieval tool with complete annotations and schema, the description covers purpose and return values. However, it omits the structure of the returned data (e.g., list of quarters), which would be helpful given no output schema.

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 the schema fully documents the three parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 EPS and YoY growth from a local database for recent N quarters, with a specific verb and resource. It also adds use case context for profit trend analysis, differentiating from broader fundamental tools.

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 EPS and growth analysis but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools among siblings (e.g., get_fundamentals_from_db). No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided.

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