company_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it reveals almost nothing. It does not mention data source differences (VCI vs KBS), return format, pagination, or any other operational traits.

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, compact sentence that wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core function with relevant examples.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits important context like what the 'source' parameter controls and whether events are limited to certain types or timeframes, which matters given the sibling tools.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters (symbol and source) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds little beyond the examples of event types, so it does not meaningfully improve parameter understanding.

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 retrieves company events and gives concrete examples (dividends, AGM, earnings). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('company events'), making the purpose distinct enough, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like company_news.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as company_news or financial statements. The context of sibling tools suggests it is for corporate action data, but the description itself offers no explicit usage direction.

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