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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the 7-day scope and filtering behavior. However, it does not disclose response shape, pagination, or whether some catalyst types are excluded, so the behavioral detail is adequate but not rich.

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 the full meaning: primary action and time window first, optional filter second. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. The readOnlyHint covers safety, the schema covers the parameter, and the description clearly defines what is returned and over what window.

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 schema already fully documents the single 'coins' parameter with a comma-separated example and the omit-for-all-coins instruction. The description essentially repeats that example without adding validation, format, or default-behavior details beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists'), names the resource ('upcoming crypto catalyst events'), and adds a clear time horizon ('next 7 days'). The word 'crypto' helps distinguish it from the sibling catalysts_economic_calendar, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 usage context: list crypto catalyst events over the next 7 days, optionally filtered by coin IDs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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