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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint); the description adds real operational context: the upstream source (Jornalo) and its 30-minute refresh cadence, the two-week horizon, and the deliberate retention of the past hour. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to judge data freshness.

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?

Three dense sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, and no filler. The parenthetical currency list is slightly heavy but carries substantive filtering information, so it earns its space.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming key return fields (`at`, `local`, `actual`), their timezones, and the ordering. It leaves other response fields and the default limit behavior implicit, but is otherwise sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all four parameters. The description still adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains the impact tiers (High = worldwide, Medium = the named majors), which is what makes the `impact` enum filter interpretable, and it clarifies the retention rule behind `includePast`/`actual`.

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?

Names the specific resource (upcoming macro releases), its ordering (time order), and its scope (high impact worldwide, medium for the listed majors plus CFTC positioning). An agent can immediately tell this apart from the trade/journal siblings, none of which deal with macro 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?

Clearly states the coverage window (this week and next) and that releases from the last hour are retained so `actual` can be read, which tells the agent when the tool is useful. It stops short of any explicit exclusion or named alternative, but no sibling overlaps, so the gap is minor.

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