get_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses the output contents (earnings estimates, dividend dates), the type of securities applicable (equity-only), and the behavior for unsupported types (returns empty for ETFs, funds, crypto). This is adequate but could be improved by explicitly stating read-only nature or whether pagination applies.

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 three concise sentences, each providing essential information: purpose, returned data, and limitations. No redundant or filler content. The most critical information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 (not shown but indicated), the description need not detail return fields. It covers the major data types (earnings, dividends) and constraints. However, it could specify whether multiple future events are returned beyond 'next' and whether the time range is configurable, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a focused tool.

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 single parameter 'symbol' is fully documented in the input schema with a clear description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it simply repeats the function's context. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed that.

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-calendar events (earnings and dividends) for a Yahoo symbol. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the scope: 'Returns the next earnings date(s) with analyst estimate ranges and the next dividend / ex-dividend dates.' The constraint 'equity-only, empty for ETFs, funds, and crypto' further clarifies the tool's specific domain, making its purpose unique among many similar tools.

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 on what the tool returns (earnings estimates and dividend dates) and its limitation (equity-only). However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over closely related siblings like `get_earnings` or `get_dividends`, nor does it state when not to use it. A brief mention of alternatives would elevate the score.

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