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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful non-obvious traits: no dates means the next 60 days, and the tool intentionally excludes advisory content. It does not discuss response shape or pagination, but these are minor for this simple factual calendar.

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 short sentences carry distinct, non-redundant information: purpose, default behavior, and data policy. The purpose is front-loaded and 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?

For a read-only, two-parameter calendar with no output schema, the description covers what data is returned (company/date pairs), the default window, the source, and the scope. It does not specify response sorting or exact formatting, but the expected output is clear enough for correct 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?

The schema already documents both parameters (from_date, to_date) with format and a 120-day cap, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by stating that the default window is the next 60 days, which helps the agent decide whether to supply dates. This goes beyond the schema's field 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a quarterly-results calendar for Indian companies, explicitly tying it to exchange-published dates. It differentiates from siblings like ipo_pipeline and fpi_flows by naming a distinct resource and scope, despite not using an imperative verb.

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 gives clear context: the default 60-day window and the factual-only boundary, warning that this tool is not for recommendations, price targets, or grey-market premiums. It does not name explicit sibling alternatives or say 'when not to use', but the scope and data policy are strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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