get_earnings_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains what the tool does and returns, including expected move details. However, it doesn't disclose potential limitations (e.g., only stocks with options, data source, refresh timing) or behavior for invalid inputs. Still, for a read-only calendar tool, the basic behavior is adequately transparent.

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 well-structured and concise, with clear sections for purpose, usage, args, and returns. Every sentence earns its place, and the front-loaded summary ('Get upcoming earnings announcements') immediately conveys the tool's core function.

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 tool with moderate complexity, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns, its parameters, and when to use it. It lacks an explicit definition of 'expected move' but does mention it is options-implied. Given no output schema and no annotations, this level of completeness is strong.

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?

Though the schema itself has no descriptions (0% coverage), the tool description explicitly explains both parameters: 'days_ahead: Number of days to look ahead' and 'min_market_cap: Minimum market cap filter in billions.' This adds clear meaning beyond the raw schema and fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get upcoming earnings announcements.' It also specifies the key output ('including expected move implied by options pricing'), which distinguishes it from related earnings tools like get_earnings_move_analysis or analyze_earnings_history.

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 explicitly provides trigger scenarios: 'Use this tool when the user asks about: Upcoming earnings, What companies report this week, Earnings calendar.' While it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, the usage context is clear and sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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