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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: a hard 14-day maximum range, US Eastern date semantics, default next-7-days window, sort order, and that the result renders as a calendar card. No permission or rate-limit caveats are given, keeping it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and constraints, then usage examples and output hint. The group enum is repeated from the schema and the example-query list is dense, but each sentence carries routing or constraint information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose; annotations cover safety; all four parameters are documented in-schema and reinforced by the description. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly, including defaults and range limits.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds value by enumerating the group values as human-readable sectors and by imposing the 14-day range constraint that the schema does not express. Default behavior for `to` aligns with the schema description rather than adding new detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List upcoming US earnings reports for a date range") plus scope qualifiers: 14-day cap, US Eastern dates, and sort order (largest/most-watched first). This is clearly distinct from get_earnings_call_summary and get_earnings_reactions, which cover past calls/reactions rather than upcoming dates.

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?

Provides concrete user-question triggers in two languages ("이번 주 실적 발표 일정", "Which chip stocks report next week?"), which gives strong usage context. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it versus get_earnings_reactions or search_stocks, so it stops short of a 5.

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