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

With no annotations, the description discloses the plan requirement and error behavior for low-tier calls, and describes the return fields. However, it does not mention behavior when all parameters are omitted, sorting, or other potential side effects.

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 with a title, requirement note, args, and returns. It is relatively concise but repeats schema information, making it slightly redundant.

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?

An output schema exists and the description lists return fields, but it lacks details on parameter interactions, such as what happens if only symbol is provided or if no dates are specified. The optional nature of all parameters is unexplained.

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 coverage is 100% and the description's Args section duplicates the schema descriptions exactly, adding no new meaning. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema already documents all 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 identifies the tool as a financial disclosure calendar and clearly states it returns a JSON array of disclosure dates. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', and does not differentiate from sibling tools.

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 only usage guidance is the PRO requirement and 403 error for lower tiers. It implies usage for retrieving disclosure dates but offers no explicit comparison to alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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