list_futures_schedules

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] trading schedules,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words: 'Get trading schedules for multiple futures products on a specific date.' It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from siblings. While conciseness is good, it doesn't provide enough context for effective tool invocation in this data-rich environment.

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 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters (limit, params, session_end_date, sort, trading_venue) are documented in the schema. The description only vaguely implies 'on a specific date,' which might relate to 'session_end_date,' but doesn't explain any parameters' purposes, formats, or interactions. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get trading schedules for multiple futures products on a specific date.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('trading schedules'), and scope ('multiple futures products on a specific date'), which is clear and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_futures_schedules_by_product_code', which appears to be a more specific variant, so it doesn't fully achieve sibling differentiation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as required parameters or date formats, nor does it compare to sibling tools like 'list_futures_schedules_by_product_code' or other futures-related tools (e.g., 'get_futures_contract_details'). This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.

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