get_corporate_action_announcements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does warn that broad queries can return very large responses, which is a useful performance trait. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. Given this is a read operation, the warning is the main behavioral note, but more context could be added.

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 only two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second gives a crucial usage warning. There is zero wasted text, and the most important actionable advice is front-loaded. This is a model of conciseness.

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 the presence of an output schema (per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential selection information: what the tool retrieves and how to scope invocations effectively. The guidance about broad queries is important context. While it could mention optional params beyond symbol, the schema already defines them, so the description plus schema is sufficiently complete 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the schema already provides full meaning for all six parameters. The description does not add new semantic details beyond the schema, though it suggests filtering by symbol and using narrow date ranges, which is more of a usage guideline than parameter semantics. This aligns with the baseline 3.

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 retrieves corporate action announcements with specific types listed (dividends, mergers, splits, spinoffs). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_corporate_action_announcement (singular) or get_corporate_actions, so it misses the differentiation that would earn a 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?

The description provides explicit practical guidance: 'Use a narrow date range and filter by symbol when possible — broad queries can return very large responses.' This tells the agent when to use the tool with constraints and warns about performance. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but gives clear context for invocation, earning a 4.

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