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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('next earnings date') which is likely non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly state safety or lack of side effects. There's no mention of rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid symbols. The description is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and wastes no words. While it could benefit from more detail, it is not overly verbose. A score of 4 reflects efficient use of space without being incomplete to the point of harm.

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 low schema coverage (0%), the lack of output schema, and the presence of non-required parameters with defaults, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify what a 'rolling calendar window' means in practice (e.g., forward-looking vs backward-looking), how multiple symbols are handled, or the format of the output. More context is needed for reliable agent usage.

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% (the schema has no descriptions for parameters), so the tool description must compensate. It mentions 'days' implicitly via 'rolling calendar window' and 'symbol' explicitly, but doesn't explain the meaning of default values (e.g., days=7 means look ahead 7 days) or constraints. This adds some clarity but leaves ambiguity.

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's purpose: 'Next earnings date for a symbol, or a rolling calendar window'. It uses specific terms ('earnings date', 'symbol', 'rolling calendar window') that convey the resource and scope. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'calendar' or 'history', which could also involve date-related data, so it misses the top score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'calendar' (broader events) and 'history' (past data), an agent would benefit from knowing that this is specifically for upcoming earnings dates, not historical earnings or other calendar events, but such context is absent.

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