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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The one behavioral fact the description adds is that omitting symbol returns the whole market — a potentially large open-world result — but this largely restates the schema's symbol description, and nothing is said about result size, default date window, or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the mode-switch guidance immediately after. The trailing example call is somewhat redundant with the schema's own examples array, so it is not perfectly lean, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers the essential calling modes. The one missing piece is the default time window when neither symbol nor dates are supplied, which matters for the market-wide case.

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 symbol, from, and to with formats. The description reinforces the symbol omission semantics and supplies a concrete example call, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema and its examples already provide.

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 and resource ('Get upcoming and recent earnings reports') and clarifies both operating modes: single-company via symbol, market-wide when omitted. It does not name or differentiate itself from the closely related sibling get_earnings_surprises, which is the main clarity gap.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for the symbol parameter ('Pass symbol for one company's earnings dates, or omit it for the whole market') plus optional date-range filtering. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over get_earnings_surprises or get_company_news, so there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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