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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a 'live-fetch' (implying real-time data retrieval) and focuses on economic release dates. However, it omits behavioral details like whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, or what happens if no releases are found. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core functionality and source. It is not verbose, and every part adds meaning, though it could be rephrased to include usage hints without increasing length.

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?

Given the tool has only 1 parameter, no required params, no output schema, and no nested objects, the complexity is low. The description sufficiently explains what the tool does (retrieve US economic release dates via FRED live-fetch). However, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., date range, fields returned) and does not specify that it only covers US data, which would be useful for completeness.

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. The 'limit' parameter (default 25) is implicitly about controlling how many upcoming dates to return, but the description does not explain what 'limit' means in the context of calendar entries (e.g., number of days or events). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's default value.

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 states the tool retrieves 'Upcoming US economic release dates' from the 'FRED calendar' and does a 'live-fetch', providing specificity about the source and functionality. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'earnings' (corporate earnings) and 'macro' (broader macro data), but could be slightly improved by noting the data is US-specific in the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'macro' or 'candles'. It does not clarify limitations (e.g., only US economic releases) or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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