get_earnings_this_week

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: default window (today to today+7d), enrichment with company name and sector, and that it is cache-only with no API call. This goes beyond the annotations.

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-organized: main purpose in the first line, usage examples next, default behavior, enrichment note, plan support, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the complexity.

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 context of many siblings and absence of output schema detail (but known to exist), the description covers input behavior, default window, enrichment, caching, and plan support. It equips the agent with sufficient information to invoke the tool 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 input schema has zero description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: date_from and date_to with format (YYYYMMDD or YYYY-MM-DD), inclusive designation, and default behaviors (today for start, +7 days for end). This is critical guidance missing from the 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 lists companies reporting earnings within a date window, grouped by day. It explicitly distinguishes from a sibling tool (get_equities_earnings_calendar) for single stock queries, providing a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 guidance with Japanese examples like '今週決算がある銘柄' and English like 'earnings this week'. It also tells when not to use it: for single stock next earnings date, use get_equities_earnings_calendar.

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