get_earnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns 'quarterly history and surprises,' which adds scope beyond the tool name. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe any limitations like lookback periods or data sources. For a simple read tool this is adequate but not thorough.

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 compact and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-line purpose, then provides an Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant detail.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema available, the description is largely complete. It explains the required parameter and summarizes the return content. The only notable gap is the absence of guidance about how this tool relates to other data tools like get_financials, but that is more relevant to usage guidelines than to contextual completeness for invoking the tool.

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 fully compensate for the single parameter. It explains that ticker is a stock symbol and provides concrete examples ('AAPL', 'MSFT'). An agent receives enough information to pass a correct value without any ambiguity.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get earnings history and upcoming earnings date.' It focuses on earnings data, distinguishing it from most siblings (quotes, technicals, orders). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_financials, which could also involve earnings information.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_financials, get_analyst_ratings, or get_company_profile. The description gives no context for selecting this tool, no exclusions, and no mention of scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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