get_earnings_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the scope of returned date categories, which is useful context, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or behavior for tickers with no scheduled earnings.

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?

Front-loaded summary followed by an Args/Returns block; no filler sentences. The Returns section is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which slightly dilutes efficiency.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it. The missing piece is sibling differentiation against get_earnings_dates/get_upcoming_earnings, which the schema cannot supply.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It labels the parameter 'Stock ticker symbol', which is a minimal semantic hint but adds nothing about format, exchange prefixes, or case sensitivity beyond the field name 'Ticker'.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get earnings calendar') and enumerates the content (next earnings date, dividend dates, ex-dividend and payment dates). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from closely overlapping siblings like get_earnings_dates, get_upcoming_earnings, get_earnings_history, or get_dividends, which an agent will struggle to choose between.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Given the dense cluster of earnings- and dividend-related siblings, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap rather than a minor omission.

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