getFinancialReportsDates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only that it returns 'latest' report dates; it does not explain whether the result is a single date or list, what period types are covered, or any rate limits. There is no contradiction, but the added behavioral context is limited.

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 definition is short and front-loads the resource, but the second sentence is largely irrelevant to a dates endpoint and may mislead agents into expecting metric data. It would be tighter and more accurate as a single sentence focused on report dates.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what dates are returned and in what form. It does not do so, and the revenue/earnings/cash-flow phrasing distracts from the actual return value. Annotations cover safety, but return-value clarity 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 description coverage is 100% for the single required 'symbol' parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'Stock symbol.' The description adds only that the companies are publicly traded, which is marginal and does not clarify symbol formats such as ticker or exchange suffix. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies a specific resource ('latest financial reports dates') and scope ('publicly traded companies'), but the verb 'Access' is generic. The second sentence drifts into tracking revenue, earnings, and cash flow, which are metrics returned by other tools, not the dates this tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from date-related siblings like getEarningsTranscriptDates or getFundDisclosureDates.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as getIncomeStatement, getEarningsReports, or getEarningsTranscriptDates. The only contextual cue is 'latest,' but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria are provided.

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