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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return structure (data.events and top-level page), the meaning of empty events, the pagination protocol, and default date behavior when dates are omitted. It does not cover rate limits, auth requirements, or error conditions, but for a read-only fetch tool this is largely sufficient.

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-loaded with purpose and filters, followed by return shape and pagination steps. Three sentences with no filler, though the pagination sentence is packed and could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given six optional parameters, pagination behavior, and no output schema, the description supplies enough detail about return fields and cursor flow for correct invocation. It could mention market-restricted API key requirements, but that is covered by the parameter schema, so the omission is minor.

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% with detailed per-parameter descriptions (limit range, cursor source, market values, symbol format, date defaults). The description adds pagination context but no new syntactic or semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 (split events) with filter dimensions, clearly distinguishing it from sibling calendars like get_dividend_calendar, get_ipo_calendar, and get_report_calendar. An agent can identify the tool's domain without opening the schema.

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 operational guidance for pagination (keep filters unchanged, pass cursor verbatim) and date defaults, which implies usage. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, leaving the when-to-use decision to inference from the name and description.

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