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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Defaults to the next 7 days if no dates specified.' It also specifies the output content (dates, EPS, revenue estimates). For a read-only 'get' tool, this is adequate transparency, though it doesn't detail edge cases like empty results or date format requirements.

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 concise and front-loaded. The main purpose is stated in the first sentence, the default behavior in the second, and usage guidance in the third. No redundant information is present; every sentence adds value.

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 tool is simple (3 optional params, no output schema), and the description covers its core behavior and default. However, the complete absence of parameter semantics (0% schema coverage) and lack of output structure details leave gaps. For instance, agents don't know the expected date format or whether results are paginated. Thus it is minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints at parameters by saying 'if no dates specified' and 'specific company's next earnings date is,' implying ticker and date range usage. It does not explain date format, whether dates are inclusive, or how ticker should be formatted. This is insufficient for agents to construct parameters correctly without additional assumptions.

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 states the tool's function: 'Get upcoming earnings announcement dates with EPS and revenue estimates.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_guidance or get_transcript, which focus on other financial data. The mention of default date range adds clarity.

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 explicitly provides usage scenarios: 'Use this when asked about upcoming earnings, who reports this week, or when a specific company's next earnings date is.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions.

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