get_earnings_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that returns are structured 'by year and quarter', with no data source, freshness, or pagination context.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then uses compact Args/Returns sections with no filler. Slightly formal but efficient and scannable.

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?

With an output schema present, the return explanation is largely redundant, so the description needn't detail results. However, for a read tool in a dense cluster of earnings siblings, the absence of disambiguation context is a real gap.

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% and there is one parameter, so the schema documents the name but not its meaning. The description lightly compensates by clarifying ticker is a 'Stock ticker symbol', but adds nothing about format (e.g., exchange suffix) or validation.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get historical earnings data') and adds scope detail ('annual and quarterly figures'). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_earnings_dates, get_earnings_calendar, or get_upcoming_earnings.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance or alternatives despite a crowded sibling space of earnings-related tools (get_earnings_dates, get_earnings_calendar, get_eps_trend). The agent is left to guess which earnings tool applies.

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