Corporate Actions (alias)

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

Annotations already establish a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description bears less burden. It adds useful context via the alias relationship, single-stock scoping, and covered event types, but says nothing about pagination, output shape, or the fact this is a filtered view of a broader event feed.

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?

Two tight sentences plus an example, front-loaded with identity then semantics. No filler; the abbreviated type:"corporate_actions" notation is slightly awkward but compact and informative.

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?

Adequate for a simple single-stock list tool backed by strong safety annotations: what it returns and how to call it are clear. The gaps are the absence of an output schema and any description of the returned event structure or how limit behaves beyond its schema default/max.

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%, so baseline is 3. The example {'symbol':'ITC'} reinforces the symbol format already documented in the schema without adding new meaning, and the embedded type:"corporate_actions" explains the underlying filter but doesn't clarify any parameter behavior beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: retrieve corporate actions (dividends, splits, bonuses, AGMs) for one stock, with a concrete example. Naming get_stock_events as its parent clarifies identity, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the overlapping sibling get_adjustment_factors.

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 'Alias for get_stock_events' statement implies get_stock_events is the general tool and this is the corporate-actions-specific view, and the example shows invocation. However, there are no explicit when/when-not conditions and no guidance steering away from overlapping siblings like get_adjustment_factors.

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