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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: consensus: null means unpublished rather than zero, results carry provenance fields, unsupported event types return empty lists with a staleness flag rather than silence, and coverage ends at a fixed date with a flag. No contradiction exists.

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 long but information-dense, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Some redundancy with the schema and heavy use of caveats make it less crisp, but each behavioral note earns its place given the tool's edge cases.

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?

With an output schema present, the description covers the non-obvious behavioral context: null consensus semantics, provenance fields, fixed coverage horizon, unsupported event types, and deferred pricing. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret surprising empty or flagged results.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and defaults. The description reinforces event_types semantics and explains the empty-list behavior, but adds little new meaning for lookahead_days. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: getting scheduled US macro events (FOMC, CPI, NFP, PCE) with dates and consensus. It clearly differentiates the tool through explicit coverage constraints, so an agent understands what this calendar does and does not contain.

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 does not name sibling alternatives, but it gives clear selection guidance by specifying which event types are tracked and which are accepted-but-empty, and by noting that market-implied pricing is a separate deferred quantity. This tells an agent when to expect meaningful results and when not to use the tool.

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