get_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains ticker flexibility (CIK, stripped CIK, historical ticker resolution) and the all-companies default, but omits details like date formatting, category values, sorting, or pagination behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence captures purpose, the second explains scoping, and the Args block provides detailed parameter guidance without unnecessary fluff.

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 five-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, scoping modes, and ticker variants. Minor gaps around date/category formats are acceptable because the output schema exists and the core invocation is well explained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds thorough semantics for ticker, but only vaguely mentions 'category and date range' without explaining valid date formats or category options. Limit is left entirely to schema defaults.

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 gets 8-K corporate events and enumerates specific event types (earnings, M&A, leadership changes, material agreements). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact SEC filing type and scope options.

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?

Guidance is clear: use ticker to scope to one company, omit to search all, and filter by category/date range. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool among many siblings.

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