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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds behavioral value beyond that by noting that dates from market data are approximate when is_estimate is true, and that results are sorted by earnings_date ascending. This helps the agent interpret the data reliability, which annotations do not convey.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first line states the core purpose. The remaining bullet points succinctly list parameter and return fields without fluff. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the format is 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?

The description fully covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly: the parameter and its constraints, the exact return shape with fields, sorting behavior, data reliability caveat, and tier access. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return values, and nothing essential 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?

The single parameter 'days' is already fully described in the schema (look-ahead window, default 7, max 30). The tool description repeats this information without adding new nuance. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not improve parameter understanding.

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 dates for stocks in the Stocklake universe, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_earnings_intelligence, which could plausibly overlap, so the purpose is clear but not sharply distinguished.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like get_earnings_intelligence or any conditions that would favor one over the other. The only operational detail is the look-ahead window default and max, which is parameter guidance, not usage context.

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