get_earnings_afterhours

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple data retrieval tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, which are needed for effective agent operation. Without annotations or output schema, more guidance would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (date, limit, page) with their types and purposes. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond implying date filtering, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('afterhours earnings') with a specific scope ('for a date'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_earnings_premarket', which handles premarket earnings data, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_earnings_premarket' or other earnings-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid date, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific use cases, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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