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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by detailing what it returns (implied-move percent, premium ratio, median IV crush, richness assessment) and the ranking logic, going beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Three concise sentences front-loaded with purpose, followed by output details and configuration options. No filler or redundant phrasing—every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the key return metrics and configuration knobs. It stops short of defining 'richness assessment' or typical edge cases, but for a read-only screener with this complexity, it is largely complete.

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 covers all 5 parameters with full (100%) descriptions, so the parameter semantics baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'forward window, row limit, and minimum importance filter' adds no unique detail beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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?

Description opens with 'Cross-sectional earnings screener' and specifies ranking dimensions (VRP richness, cheapest move, highest crush, importance), plus output fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_earnings_calendar or get_earnings, which are event-specific.

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 term 'cross-sectional' implies comparing many upcoming events, which is useful context, and the description notes configurable parameters. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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