get_market_fda_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the events are returned in. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise at just three words, front-loaded with the core purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It efficiently communicates the basic function without any structural issues.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'FDA calendar events' includes, what format they're returned in, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool in a financial/market context with many sibling tools, more context about the specific domain and use cases would be helpful.

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%, with both parameters ('date' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get FDA calendar events' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('FDA calendar events'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_market_economic_calendar'. It specifies FDA events but doesn't clarify what types of events or what 'FDA calendar' refers to in this context.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_market_economic_calendar' that might overlap in domain, there's no indication of when FDA calendar events are needed versus general economic calendar events. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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