get_earnings_dates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results include dates, estimates, and actual results, which is modest added context. It does not disclose pagination, coverage window, or any behavior beyond what the annotations and output schema carry.

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 uses an Args/Returns block structure that is tidy, but the Returns section largely restates what the output schema already encodes. There is no wasted prose, but some of the content does not earn its place given structured fields cover it.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotations, the safety and return shape are covered. The missing piece is disambiguation from the several closely related earnings siblings, which leaves a real gap in an otherwise workable definition.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does describe ticker as 'Stock ticker symbol' — clarifying it expects a symbol rather than a company name. With only one simple parameter, this minimal compensation is adequate but not rich; baseline 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?

States a clear verb and resource (get earnings dates) and names scope (upcoming and past, with estimates and actual results). However, it fails to distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as get_earnings_calendar, get_earnings_history, and get_upcoming_earnings, which appear to cover the same territory. An agent cannot tell from the description why it should pick this tool over those.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives are given. Given the crowded set of earnings-related siblings, this omission is costly — the agent has no basis for choosing among get_earnings_dates, get_earnings_calendar, and get_earnings_history.

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