get_earnings_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: results sorted by market cap descending, Markdown default with JSON via response_format, and an empty range returning a short message. It stops short of noting truncation behavior when limit is hit, which is the one operational detail an agent might still need.

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?

Three short paragraphs with the payload and scope front-loaded, followed by routing guidance, then output-format and edge-case notes. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing repeats the tool name or annotations.

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?

For a 5-parameter, all-optional read tool with an output schema, the description covers scope, field set, sorting, format switching and empty-result behavior. Return-value structure is delegated to the output schema as permitted, so no gap remains that would cause a misinvocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the market-cap sort order explains what limit actually truncates (the top N by size, not an arbitrary slice), and it confirms the Markdown/JSON switch. Date defaults and min_market_cap units are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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?

States a specific resource and scope ('Every company reporting earnings in a date range, market-wide') and enumerates the returned fields (symbol, market cap, timing BMO/AMC, EPS estimate, actual, surprise %). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_earnings, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('who reports this week', catalyst watchlist, checking which holdings report soon) and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named: 'Not for one stock's history: use get_earnings for that.' Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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