get_earnings_move_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior in detail by listing the seven analysis modes and what they compute (e.g., 'IV crush pattern', 'over/underpriced assessment'), and clarifies that it returns a compact summary. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or data sources, but for a read-only analysis tool, the behavioral disclosure is strong.

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 moderately long but every section earns its place: the analysis mode list, use case, args, and returns. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly verbose due to the enumeration, but no redundant content; a 4 is appropriate.

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 tool with multiple analysis modes and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what each mode does, how to invoke it, and what the return value is ('the selected earnings analysis payload with a compact summary'). It lacks details on data sources or limitations, but the core context is fully covered.

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 coverage is 0% because the schema has no parameter descriptions. The description compensates fully by explaining ticker ('Stock symbol'), analysis (with the seven named options), and periods ('Comma-separated day horizons for historical_moves, default 7,14,21,30'). This adds value well beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Analyze how a stock moves around earnings and whether options misprice it.' This is a specific verb+resource with scope, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_earnings_calendar or calculate_expected_move.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user asks whether earnings options are over/underpriced, how a stock usually moves on earnings, or if a straddle is worth buying.' It provides clear context but does not include when-not-to-use or alternatives, which prevents a 5.

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