recently_reported

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does convey a useful data-coverage caveat: EPS actual vs. estimate appears only 'where the calendar has filled it in.' It leaves out details like ordering, limits, and how missing estimates are handled, so transparency is only partial.

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 a single short sentence with the recency criterion front-loaded and the output detail after it. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the parameter and the core result content, so it is workable. However, it never identifies the source 'calendar' and gives no selection guidance among the many earnings-related siblings, leaving an agent to infer the exact use case.

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%, but the description explicitly defines days_back as the recency window with 'in the last `days_back` days.' This gives the one parameter meaningful semantics beyond its title and default, though it doesn't address edge cases like zero or negative values.

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 says the tool returns companies that reported within a configurable window and includes EPS actual vs. estimate, so the core function is clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like earnings_calendar or earnings_history, but the EPS wording makes the earnings-reporting domain evident.

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?

No sentence tells an agent when to choose recently_reported over earnings_calendar, earnings_history, or screener_window, nor when not to use it. The only hint is the 'calendar has filled it in' caveat, which is not explicit routing guidance.

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