company_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention date range behavior, how far back events go, whether it's historical or upcoming events, or the return format. For a data retrieval tool with no annotation safety profile, this is a notable gap.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It's slightly under-specified, but for its length it's efficient and front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

An output schema exists which covers return value documentation, but the tool has no annotations and the description doesn't clarify the event types fully (the 'etc.' is vague). The source parameter has unclear semantics between VCI and KBS. For a moderately complex data tool, the description leaves meaningful gaps about scope and data coverage.

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 both parameters have descriptions. However, the source parameter's values (VCI vs KBS) are not explained beyond listing them, and the description adds no context about what the different sources mean or when to choose each. With 100% coverage the baseline is 3, but the source semantics are materially under-specified.

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 states the tool gets company events and lists examples (dividends, AGM, earnings), which gives a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't distinguish this from siblings like company_news or company_overview, and the generic 'etc.' leaves scope ambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus company_news or other company tools. It doesn't indicate what kinds of queries warrant events data vs news or overview data. The description implies retrieval but offers no exclusions or alternatives.

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