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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral value by flagging that the response includes 'tactical volatility blackout windows,' which is more than a bare listing. However, it says nothing about data freshness, timezone, refresh cadence, or whether the read is cached, which matters for a same-day calendar tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the scope constraint ('today's trading session') attached to it. The event-type enumeration (FOMC, CPI, PPI, NFP) is informative rather than padding, though it is slightly list-heavy.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key gaps: what categories are included, the time window, and the presence of blackout windows. It stops short of describing the shape of an individual event (time, impact rating, affected symbols), which an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully clarifies that scope is hard-coded to today's session, telling the agent there is no date argument to supply and no way to query other days.

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 ('Lists') and a well-scoped resource: scheduled macro events, FOMC, CPI/PPI, NFP, plus volatility blackout windows, all limited to today's session. An agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_macro_thesis, but the resource is distinctive enough to avoid confusion.

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 by the phrase 'for today's trading session,' which suggests pre-session or intraday volatility checks. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of what to use instead for historical or forward-dated calendars, and no mention of how it relates to get_macro_thesis or get_expected_move.

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