get_earnings_calendar

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 usefully discloses output-format behavior (text by default, json for structured data) but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or how results are ordered/paginated.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior and ending with an actionable output-format hint. Minor redundancy with the schema's format default, but no wasted text.

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?

All four optional parameters are documented and the description states what is returned (earnings announcements with EPS estimates). With no output schema, a brief mention of return shape is present; only edge details like result ordering are missing.

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 every parameter (start, end, format, max_results) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the format default, adding no syntax or constraint beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns upcoming earnings announcements with EPS estimates') and frames it as a calendar/tracking view. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_earnings, which returns reported results — that ambiguity is left for the agent to resolve.

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?

'Use for tracking reporting dates across the market' implies a use case but gives no explicit when-not guidance and never names or contrasts with the sibling get_earnings. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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