earnings_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'fetch' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, what format the earnings calendar data returns, or whether it's real-time or historical data. The description is too minimal for a tool with parameters.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't contain any unnecessary elaboration. This is appropriate conciseness for a simple-sounding tool.

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 tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, or any behavioral characteristics. For a financial data tool with parameters, this leaves too many unanswered questions.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for both parameters (symbol and horizon), and the tool description provides no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or valid values. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.

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 verb 'fetch' and the resource 'company earnings calendar', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'company_earnings' or 'ipo_calendar', which might have overlapping functionality in the financial data context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'company_earnings' or 'ipo_calendar'. There's no mention of what makes this earnings calendar tool unique, what timeframes it covers, or any prerequisites for its use.

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