get_earnings_premarket

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 fails to detail critical behaviors such as pagination handling (via 'limit' and 'page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or the format of returned earnings data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without any redundant or extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering perfectly to conciseness standards.

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 complexity of a data retrieval tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, errors), output format, and usage guidelines, leaving the agent under-informed. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for effective tool invocation is insufficient.

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, with clear documentation for 'date', 'limit', and 'page' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying date filtering, which is already covered in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('premarket earnings'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies the scope with 'for a date', which distinguishes it from other earnings tools like 'get_earnings_afterhours' or 'get_earnings_ticker' that focus on different timeframes or ticker-specific data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings beyond the date focus, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance by implying usage is for retrieving premarket earnings on a specific date, but it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_earnings_afterhours' or other data-fetching tools. There are no mentions of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving the agent with insufficient direction for optimal tool selection.

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