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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and closed-world behavior; the description adds substantial context beyond them — up to 5 events soonest-first, truncation via `truncated`, statutory windows that are never exact dates, date_status values, free vs paid route, disclaimer, and data_contract. This is rich operational context for a read-only tool.

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 purpose, then params, returns, caveats and monetization. However, it is long for a two-parameter tool and repeats itself — data_contract appears both in the return list and again at the end as 'Every answer carries data_contract...'. Some sentences, such as the awkward 'named with its price in `full`', could be tightened.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return burden. It fully documents the response shape (as_of, today, days_ahead, ticker, count, available, truncated, events[], full, disclaimer, cite, data_contract), event fields, possible date_status values, truncation, and the paid vs free access model. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result is missing.

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% and already documents both parameters (ticker up to 12 chars, days_ahead 1-60 default 60). The description mostly repeats that and adds brief example payloads, but adds no new syntax or constraint meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (next results dates and SEC 10-Q/10-K filing windows of listed bitcoin holders) and names representative tickers (MSTR, COIN, MARA, HOOD). An agent can tell this is an earnings/filing calendar, not a generic signal feed like the 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?

Explicitly bounds the tool to 'one question, one answer' and routes bulk/history/backfill/scheduled pulls to CSVs and datapackage.json at coinbucha.com/data. It does not explicitly compare against sibling signal tools, but the scope boundaries and alternatives are clear.

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