get_earnings_calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. It adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotation: results are sorted chronologically, filters include symbol/date range/horizon, and the return payload includes symbol, company name, report date, BMO/AMC time, and estimate/actual EPS. This is richer than simply restating the safety profile.

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 three tight sentences: the first states what it does, the second details filter options and return fields, and the third gives the intended use case. No word is wasted, and each sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and readOnlyHint annotation, the description still delivers sufficient context for correct invocation. It covers the purpose, all primary filter modes, expected return fields, and a practical use case. Everything an agent needs to select and call the tool is included or already available in structured metadata.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter already has a description (e.g., 'Single ticker filter', 'End date YYYY-MM-DD (overrides horizon)'). The description restates these concepts but adds little new semantic value. The use of 'or' when listing filters could vaguely imply mutual exclusivity, though the schema's 'overrides' language partially clarifies precedence. Thus it stays at the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Upcoming earnings reports sorted chronologically.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from all sibling tools, as no other tool relates to earnings calendars. The listed filter and return-field details further reinforce the purpose.

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 a clear use case: 'Use to flag earnings-event risk in a portfolio over the next N days.' This gives an agent the context for when to choose this tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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