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

Annotations already mark this as safe/read-only/idempotent, and the description adds value by noting default time window (next three months) and additional output details (earnings carry EPS, IPOs carry exchange and price range). This goes beyond simple safety hints without being exhaustive.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful detail. No waste or redundancy.

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 read-only calendar tool with fully described parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (event types, default window, filtering options, and some output fields). It lacks details like pagination or default limit, but those are in the schema, and the tool's simplicity makes this sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces filter usage but adds little new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents. The mention of EPS/price range relates to output rather than parameters.

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 lists upcoming earnings and IPOs across the market, specifying a time horizon (next three months). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_movers or get_market_pulse by focusing on a calendar of specific event types.

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?

It provides clear usage context: filter by tickers and/or date range to tailor coverage. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the intended use cases are evident, especially with the note about using tickers to reach a coverage list.

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