Get Earnings Calendar

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: return fields (ticker, date, time, estimates with 'when available' caveat) and market cap filtering options. No destructive behaviors are relevant, and the description is consistent with 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?

Two concise sentences: first states the primary function and input, second details output and optional filters. No filler, front-loaded with essential information. Every sentence is earned.

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 the tool's complexity (5 params, 2 required, output schema exists), the description covers input (date range, tickers, market cap), output fields, and the 'when available' qualifier. It addresses the main use cases without missing critical context. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but the description still explains what is returned.

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% with descriptions on all 5 parameters. The description adds value by summarizing the filtering intent ('market cap filtering to focus on large-cap or small-cap earnings only') and explaining the overall workflow (date range, optional tickers, market cap). This goes beyond redundant repetition.

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 uses a specific verb ('get'), resource ('earnings calendar'), and scope ('between two dates'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on earnings releases with date range, ticker filter, and market cap filtering. The return fields are listed (ticker, date, time, EPS estimate, revenue estimate).

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 implies usage context (upcoming and recent earnings, optional filters) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_earnings or get_post_earnings_movers. However, the detail is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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