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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds crucial behavioral context: partial coverage, the interpretation of empty results, the scraping source, and that only future events are returned. It also states the ordering. None of this contradicts the annotations, and it meaningfully enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool does and what the results mean.

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 a single, dense paragraph with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds filtering, ordering, coverage caveat, and routing to alternatives—each sentence earns its place. The structure is highly efficient for an agent scanning for decision-useful information.

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?

The description covers the essential decision points: what is returned (future events), ordering, optional filter, coverage caveat, and where to go for past events. However, it does not specify the exact structure of the returned event objects (e.g., fields like date, type, URL), and there is no output schema to fill that gap. This leaves a minor ambiguity for an agent that needs to parse the result programmatically, though it is sufficient 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage on all three parameters (ticker, eventType, maxResults) with detailed descriptions, defaults, and the note about the 'Event' generic type. The tool description adds little beyond that, merely echoing optional filtering and the future-only scope. Since the schema carries the full parameter meaning, the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('upcoming investor-relations events'), enumerates concrete event types (earnings webcasts, conference appearances, presentations, shareholder meetings), and names the data source (company IR website). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting that past events and transcripts are handled by ListInvestorEvents / GetInvestorEventTranscript, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool covers.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Only future events are returned; for past events and their transcripts use ListInvestorEvents / GetInvestorEventTranscript.' It also clarifies the optional eventType filter, the ordering (soonest first), and the coverage caveat—an empty answer means a coverage gap, not an empty calendar. This is complete routing and expectation-setting.

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