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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the response envelope (data.events, top-level page), what an empty events list means, and required pagination discipline. It omits auth/permission requirements and rate-limit behavior, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers return shape and pagination rules. Every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant, though the multi-clause pagination sentence is slightly dense.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by explaining the return shape, the empty-result meaning, and how to chain pages. Date-default fallback is also covered, leaving only auth/permission context unaddressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents limit, cursor, market, symbols and both dates with formats and defaults. The description adds only the cursor-verbatim and filter-stability rules, which is modest value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('earnings and results events') plus the filter dimensions and pagination nature. This adequately separates it from siblings like get_dividend_calendar, get_ipo_calendar and get_split_calendar, though it never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Provides real usage mechanics for pagination (keep filters unchanged, pass page.next_cursor verbatim, reuse data.from/data.to when dates were omitted) and the empty-result case. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the other calendar tools, so context selection is only implied.

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