get_company_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral scope: it returns forward-looking events, not historical records. However, it does not describe absence behavior, whether dates are estimates, or how the response is ordered/paginated, leaving several behavioral details unstated.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the main action and scope, and no filler. The list of event types is compact while still conveying the tool's content.

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?

The output content is partially specified via the event-type list, but with no output schema or annotations, key context is missing: how limit affects results, ordering, what happens when no events exist, and whether the dates are estimates. Adequate for a simple tool, but with clear gaps.

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 only 50%: symbol is described but limit has only constraints, not a description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining limit's effect on the event list, so the limit parameter remains under-specified in both schema and description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('forward-looking company events'), then enumerates the exact event types returned. The term 'forward-looking' also distinguishes it from historical siblings like get_earnings and get_dividends.

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 phrase 'forward-looking' implies this tool is for upcoming events, but it never explicitly tells the agent when to prefer this over get_earnings or get_dividends, nor does it state any when-not conditions. No alternative tool is named.

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