earnings-surprises

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions 'free' and 'no API key' but lacks details on data freshness, limits, error handling, or other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and list output data. The second sentence adds context on data source and tool pairings. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema, the description lists six specific data points, the data source, and related tools. It adequately covers the tool's output and integration, missing only minor details like potential pagination or response format.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes parameters but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It restates the ticker and quarters fields without additional context.

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 provides 'Historical EPS beat/miss data for any US equity' and lists specific data fields. It also differentiates from siblings by noting it pairs with analyst-ratings and equity-fundamentals.

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 implies usage for historical earnings data and mentions pairing with sibling tools, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. Given many financial siblings, clearer usage guidance would improve scores.

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