get_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states what the tool returns (next earnings date(s), analyst estimate ranges, dividend/ex-dividend dates) and that it returns empty for non-equities. This adds value beyond the schema, though it does not address permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, which are not critical for a simple read tool.

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 two concise paragraphs: the first states the purpose, the second gives symbol requirements and return content. It is front-loaded, well-structured, and every sentence adds useful information without fluff.

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 and a single parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input constraints, return content, and the empty-case for non-equities. It lacks explicit differentiation from overlapping sibling tools, which is a minor gap, but overall it is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 already provides a thorough description of the 'symbol' parameter, including examples, exclusions, and resolution via 'search'. The tool description repeats essentially the same guidance without adding new semantics. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb+resource: 'Get upcoming corporate-calendar events for a Yahoo symbol.' It further specifies the return content (earnings dates with analyst estimate ranges, dividend/ex-dividend dates). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_earnings or get_dividends, which may overlap.

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 concrete input prerequisites: symbol must be a native Yahoo ticker, never an ISIN/WKN/name, and advises using 'search' to resolve non-ticker inputs. It also gives a clear when-not condition ('Equity-only; empty for ETFs, funds, and crypto'). However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over related siblings like get_earnings or get_dividends.

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