Get corporate calendar

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing partial coverage, that missing events mean unknown coverage rather than absence, that dates and estimates change, that q silently widens earnings/ex-dividend to 120 days and listings to 60 months, and a request budget of at most three calendar requests plus a ticker lookup. These are real behavioral traits an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then caveats, then the request budget. Every sentence carries signal, though the closing sentence about three calendar requests and the Yahoo suffix lookup is compressed to the point of being hard to parse.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter descriptions, the description covers coverage limits, data volatility, and read-only safety. A brief note on how the three calendars interleave in the response would close the remaining gap, but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter interaction context (search widening effective windows, native listing quote currencies, source metadata) that the schema does not state. The q-overrides-days behavior is repeated from the schema, but the surrounding effects are additive.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: reading stored upcoming earnings, ex-dividend dates, and recent listings. Scope is clear enough that an agent can tell it apart from price-history or estimates tools. It does not explicitly name the nearest sibling (get_forward_estimates) as an alternative.

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?

States the tool is read-only and clarifies that listings are not an IPO schedule, which implies when the data is appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as get_forward_estimates or get_company_data_coverage, leaving selection to inference.

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