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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so credit goes to the extra context: timestamps are in UTC, the Focus Bulletin appears every Monday, and the no-argument default produces a today→+30d window. That is real behavioral information an agent cannot infer from the annotations, though return ordering or pagination is unmentioned.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first describes content and format, the second the default window. Front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by the most decision-relevant default.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies content types, timezone, and default range — enough to call it correctly. Minor omissions (result ordering, whether the 120-day ceiling is enforced by the tool) keep it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by disclosing the default window behavior when 'from'/'to' are omitted, which the schema does not state. It does not, however, explain the 120-day cap interaction or formatting beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('divulgações oficiais agendadas'), then enumerates concrete examples (IPCA, PIB, PNAD, Copom) that make the returned content unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as get_bulletin, list_bulletins, or get_indicator_series, which fetch bulletin content or series values rather than a forward-looking release schedule.

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 gives clear operating context by stating that omitting dates yields a window from today to 30 days ahead, which tells the agent how to call it in the common case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., where to go for a specific indicator's value instead), so it stops short of a 5.

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