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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are sorted oldest first, the implicit default window is today through 30 days out, and over-window results are truncated rather than paged — the last point is the kind of silent failure mode an agent needs warned about.

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, no filler, and the identity of the resource is front-loaded before the defaulting and truncation rules. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from structured fields.

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, rich annotations and full parameter coverage, the description fills the remaining gaps: ordering, default window, and truncation behavior. The one unresolved ambiguity is whether scheduled publications appear here or only in list_publications, which an agent deciding between the two would still have to guess.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including the fromDate/toDate defaults are already documented. The description restates the default window and gestures at date narrowing but adds no format, boundary or interaction detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource and enumerates exactly what the resource contains: the brand team's own events plus Rawa-curated holidays, seasons and cultural moments for its markets and industries. That content scope distinguishes it from the create/update/delete calendar siblings and from list_publications, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description says what happens when no dates are given and tells the agent to 'narrow the dates' when results are truncated, which is a useful remediation. But it never says when to choose this over list_publications or list_signals, nor any prerequisite for brandId beyond what the schema already states.

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