earnings_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose meaningful behavior: results are newest-first, an upcoming report is included, the count of past reports is capped at 120, and the returned fields are enumerated. However, it does not mention any response structure, potential errors, or whether additional pagination 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 entire description is one information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently lists ordering, count limits, and returned fields. Every phrase adds value.

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 moderate two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers the essential operational details: what the symbol parameter means, how the reports parameter behaves, the maximum count, the ordering, and the fields returned. It is slightly incomplete only in omitting explicit parameter defaults and response envelope details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by indicating that 'reports' controls how many past reports are returned and that the cap is 120, and it clarifies that 'symbol' refers to a single symbol. It does not explicitly state the default value or the valid range beyond the max, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 identifies the resource: quarterly earnings reports for a single symbol, with a specific ordering (newest first). It does not explicitly name sibling tools or draw contrasts, but the 'one symbol' and 'quarterly reports' phrasing naturally distinguishes it from calendar-wide or multi-symbol sibling tools.

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 usage context is implied through the description: an agent can infer this is for retrieving a single symbol's earnings history. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings like earnings_calendar or recently_reported, nor any stated exclusions.

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