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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the next expected date is an estimate until confirmed, that the source is 8-K filings, and that only dates are returned (no EPS/consensus). It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but the core behavioral traits are covered adequately.

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 densely informative with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then branches into usage modes, then specifies constraints and output expectations. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 must clarify return values. It states 'Dates only, no EPS or consensus' but does not specify the exact response structure (e.g., array of date strings or an object with ticker). It also does not explain how limit interacts with the result set. However, given the tool's simplicity and the strong behavioral disclosure, it is mostly complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 60%. The description explains the semantics of from, to, status, and ticker implicitly (via 'from and to open any window up to 120 days; status reported or estimated' and the ticker examples). However, the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description, leaving its behavior undocumented. The description partially compensates but does not fully cover all five 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'When US companies report results, from their own 8-K filings.' It clearly defines the tool as an earnings calendar derived from 8-K filings, distinguishing it from siblings like economic_calendar (macro) and corporate_events (broader). The 'Dates only, no EPS or consensus' clause further narrows its scope.

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 gives explicit guidance for two modes: with a ticker (historical and next expected date) and without (calendar window with from/to and status). It explains the default window (today to 14 days ahead) and the 120-day limit. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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