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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses that results are paginated. It does not mention date-range semantics, default behavior, data freshness, or whether the calendar is historical, upcoming, or both.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler. However, it is arguably too sparse given the number of undocumented parameters and the absence of annotations, so it is concise but not fully appropriately sized.

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 an unannotated tool with no output schema and many similarly named siblings, the description is incomplete. It establishes the resource and pagination but lacks parameter semantics, selection guidance, and enough behavioral detail for reliable invocation.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The five parameters (days, page, group, locale, page_size) are entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently set values without external knowledge.

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 identifies a specific resource: an earnings calendar covering final/interim/quarterly results, dividends, profit warnings, and board dates. This content enumeration helps distinguish it from broad financial-data tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as get_corporate_actions or get_financial_data. The content list implies a purpose, but there are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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