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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about what is returned: dated events, the signal to read, and category, while also specifying the days_ahead range and default. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight sentences carry all the essential information: the resource, the output shape, the key parameter, and the question it answers. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The tool is callable with defaults and the core days_ahead behavior is explained, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, scope and market remain unexplained, and with several sibling tools that could plausibly overlap, the description does not fully disambiguate when this tool should be preferred.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It explains days_ahead's range and purpose, but scope and market are left entirely to inference from their names and defaults, with no allowed values or behavior described.

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 defines the tool as a forward calendar of dated events the Executive Brief is watching, including signals and categories. It gives a concrete question the tool answers, so an agent can tell it apart from general market or risk tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_world_events.

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?

It provides a clear use context: answering 'what's coming up that could move things?' and explains how to set the horizon via days_ahead. It does not offer exclusions or compare against alternative tools, but the guidance is specific enough for common use.

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