get_asset_reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the date-window scope and defaults (now to one year ahead) but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or what happens when the issuer has no reports. With annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block with no filler. Efficient, though the Args block uses a code-doc style that is slightly redundant with the schema field list.

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 simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter formats and defaults, and the nature of the returned data (earnings report dates). Only fine-grained response details, like ordering or absence handling, are unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does: instrument_id accepts ticker, FIGI, ISIN or UID; from_date and to_date are documented with YYYY-MM-DD format, inclusivity, and defaults. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 past earnings report dates for an instrument's issuer.' An agent can distinguish this from sibling data tools like get_dividends or get_asset_fundamentals. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it falls just short of 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling quote/asset tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose sentence.

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