get_earnings_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the operation is a read ('döndürür') and names the exact fields returned, which is helpful, but says nothing about permissions, data freshness, rate limits, or behavior when no upcoming earnings exist.

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?

Two compact sentences that lead with the core purpose and then enumerate the return payload, with no filler. Slightly dense but every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and states market coverage, which is the key missing structured information. It remains thin on error/empty-result behavior, but for a single-parameter read tool it is nearly complete.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage and example symbols (THYAO.IS, AAPL, NVDA, MSFT) already documented in the schema. The description adds only the geographic scope (BIST and US), which marginally clarifies valid symbol formats, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (returns a stock's upcoming earnings date and analyst expectations) and enumerates the exact payload fields (EPS range, revenue estimate, last earnings date, EPS growth). This makes it distinguishable from generic quote tools, though it does not explicitly separate itself from the overlapping get_analyst_consensus sibling.

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 only usage signal is the scope note that it works for both BIST and US stocks, which is useful context but not a when-to-use rule. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_analyst_consensus or get_fundamentals, so the agent must infer the selection.

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