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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by disclosing partial coverage, that missing events mean unknown coverage rather than proof of absence, that estimates can change, and the request budget (three calendar requests plus one ticker lookup for exchange-suffixed symbols). It also flags that a nonblank q silently widens windows to 120 days / 60 months, which is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent must know before calling.

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 the resource and scope, and every sentence carries substantive content (caveats, coverage limits, request budget). It is a single dense paragraph, so the caveats and the request-count limit are buried rather than separated for scanability.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers what an agent must know: coverage is partial, absence is not evidence, windows can be overridden, and the call budget is bounded. Nothing material is missing 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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description still adds value by tying parameters together — q vs days/listingMonths override behavior, market-cap filtering, and native listing quote currencies — plus the ticker-lookup side effect for exchange-suffixed searches.

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 set: 'Read stored upcoming earnings and ex-dividend dates, plus recent equity listings.' It also pre-empts a likely misconception by noting that recent first-trade dates are not an IPO schedule. It never names a sibling tool such as get_forward_estimates or get_earnings_call_transcript, so routing still depends on inference.

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?

Usage is implied through scope statements ('explicit effective windows,' 'market-cap filters,' 'ticker/company search') and through the note that q overrides days and listingMonths. There is no explicit 'use this when… / use X instead' guidance despite a crowded sibling set that includes get_forward_estimates, get_financial_history, and get_earnings_call_transcript.

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