analyze_earnings_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds behavioral context by explaining that the tool compares actual moves to options-implied expected moves, which is useful. However, it does not disclose limitations, data sources, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving some ambiguity.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with a clear definition. It uses bullet points for use cases and an Args/Returns section, making it easy to scan. There is some redundancy between the introductory verb phrase and the bullet list, but overall it is efficient and every section 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description provides a reasonable overview: what it does, when to use it, and a high-level return description. However, it does not address the near-duplicate sibling tool get_earnings_move_analysis, nor does it clarify data coverage or output format, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 only parameter 'ticker' is described as 'Stock symbol', but this adds no meaning beyond the schema's title 'Ticker'. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not provide format examples or any additional semantic guidance, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Analyze historical earnings moves') and adds useful scope ('compared to the expected move implied by options'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_earnings_move_analysis, which has a nearly identical name and likely overlaps, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit use cases ('Historical earnings moves', 'Past earnings reactions', 'Beat/miss patterns', 'Options pricing accuracy') to guide the agent. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for common scenarios.

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