get_expected_disclosures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait—that results are future-dated expected/scheduled items rather than confirmed ones—but says nothing about permissions, data coverage, or whether results are paginated or bounded.

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?

A single, efficiently front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is well sized, though its brevity is also the source of the documentation gaps.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with three required, undescribed parameters and no annotations, the description leaves meaningful gaps around what the codes and dates should look like.

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?

All three params (entity_codes, from_date, to_date) have 0% schema description coverage. The description only loosely implies entities ('şirket ve fonların') and a date horizon ('ileri tarihli'), giving no format hints for the codes or the date range syntax, so the coverage gap is largely unaddressed.

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 specific verb ('getirir' = retrieves) and a precise resource ('beklenen bildirim takvimi' = expected disclosure calendar) with a scope qualifier ('ileri tarihli' = future-dated). This implicitly separates it from siblings like get_disclosure/query_disclosures (actual past disclosures), though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_disclosure or query_disclosures. The phrase 'ileri tarihli' (future-dated) hints at usage for upcoming scheduled disclosures, but the agent must infer the distinction.

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