Earnings History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context about comparing actual moves to implied expected moves and covering beat/miss patterns. However, it does not disclose return format, data limitations, or what the 'analysis' includes; no contradiction with annotations exists.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, a brief explanatory sentence, a bulleted 'Use this tool when' list, and compact Args/Returns sections. Every element earns its place without filler.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The Returns line is vague, but the body already explains what the analysis shows, making the description sufficiently 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?

The only parameter, ticker, is described as 'Stock symbol,' which adds little beyond the schema's property name and title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only minimally compensates and provides no format, example, or validation details.

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 uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('historical earnings moves for a stock'), and clarifies that it compares actual moves to the expected move implied by options. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling 'get_earnings_move_analysis', 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 an explicit 'Use this tool when' list covering historical earnings moves, past reactions, beat/miss patterns, and options pricing accuracy. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks the exclusion guidance needed for a 5.

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