corporate_calendar

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the behavioral burden and largely succeeds. It explains the default date window, vendor corroboration for splits, output shape via total and rows, and the 200-row cap on limit. It stops short of stating rate limits or data freshness, but the main runtime behaviors are disclosed.

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 core purpose is in the opening phrase, followed by useful field-level detail and pagination semantics. There is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 no output schema and no annotations, this description is notably complete: it covers event types, date behavior, output fields, and pagination. It does not mention date inclusivity, timezone, or error cases, but those are not essential for correct invocation here.

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 document every parameter, and it does. start and end are explained as ISO dates with a default window of today forward; limit is given concrete meaning as the first N rows with a max of 200; kind is implicitly enumerated through dividends, splits, and IPOs.

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 first sentence clearly defines the tool as a market-wide lookup for dividends, splits, or IPOs over a date range. This distinguishes it from siblings like earnings_calendar and economic_calendar, and the backticked event types make the scope immediately concrete.

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 'Market-wide' qualifier implies the tool is for broad corporate-event lookups rather than symbol-specific or macroeconomic calendars, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not name alternatives such as earnings_calendar or symbol_events.

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