get_earnings_calendar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what is returned (dates, estimates, historical results) but lacks details on pagination, error handling, or data scope (e.g., market-wide when symbol omitted). Basic transparency is present but incomplete.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. First sentence front-loads the core purpose, second adds relevant context, third lists returns. Efficient structure.

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 simple tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main function. It could mention that omitting symbol gives market-wide calendar, but the schema already hints at that. Overall, reasonably complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about options volatility but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 it gets upcoming earnings dates and historical earnings data for a stock, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_financial_statements or get_historical_data by focusing specifically on earnings calendar data.

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 context that earnings impact options pricing, implying use cases for options analysis, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. No direct comparison with siblings is given.

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