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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the API returns split date and ratio, but it does not clarify important behavioral aspects such as whether the from/to parameters are required, how results are ordered, or whether the API lists events as a flat array. The term 'upcoming' also potentially conflicts with the flexible date range parameters, creating ambiguity about what the tool actually returns.

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, consisting of two sentences that are informative without excessive fluff. The phrase 'Stay informed about' is slightly promotional but not distracting. It front-loads the topic and provides essential details in the second sentence, making it easy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining return values. It does mention split date and ratio, but it omits details about the overall response structure and whether results are limited to the specified date range. The 'upcoming' wording adds ambiguity about the date scope, leaving the tool's full behavior somewhat incomplete.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'from' (start date, YYYY-MM-DD) and 'to' (end date, YYYY-MM-DD). The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 provides data on upcoming stock splits, specifying the resource (FMP Stock Splits Calendar API) and the key data points (split date and ratio). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getStockSplits by emphasizing 'upcoming' and 'before they occur', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: use this to track upcoming stock splits across multiple companies. It implies when to use it (to stay informed about share structure changes) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for typical use, but it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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