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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'curated' and lists event types; it does not mention whether operations are read-only, how results are returned, or any limitations such as rate limits or data coverage.

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?

A single, dense sentence effectively communicates the tool's core function without redundancy, earning top marks for conciseness.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is underspecified. It does not state the response structure, whether events include timestamps or metadata, or how the type parameter affects the results, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool confidently.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for start, end, and type. The description's mention of 'in a range' and the listed event types loosely correlates with start/end and type, but it does not explain parameter formats, required vs optional, or accepted values.

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 identifies the tool as providing curated macro/crypto events, listing specific event types (FOMC, halvings, incidents), which distinguishes it from sibling data tools. Though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' the resource and scope are evident.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bars or get_fundamentals. The phrase 'in a range' implies a temporal scope, but there are no exclusion criteria or use-case scenarios.

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