get_earnings_results_this_week

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description adds meaningful behavioral details: results are 'disclosed in the past', each filing carries 'headline P&L' and other specifics, it is 'cache-only, no API call', and Free plan results are 'delayed 12 weeks, so the recent window is empty for Free.' This enriches the safety and data-freshness profile.

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 structured into clear logical segments: purpose, usage examples, alternative tools, supported plans, and argument definitions. Every sentence contributes critical information without fluff, making it both compact and highly informative.

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 (2 optional params, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, plans, edge cases (Free delay), defaults, and alternatives, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description compensates with an 'Args' section that explains date_from and date_to, including inclusive window, accepted formats (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD), and defaults. This fully covers the parameter semantics.

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: 'Earnings results actually disclosed in a date window, grouped by day', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming get_earnings_this_week for upcoming schedules and get_fins_summary for one stock's full financials.

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 usage contexts: 'Use for 今週発表された決算, 直近の決算結果...' and directly states alternatives: 'For the upcoming SCHEDULE use get_earnings_this_week; for one stock's full financials use get_fins_summary.' This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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