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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that each entry includes the series it updates — but says nothing about ordering, limits, or how publisher filtering changes the result.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing publisher and usage context.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is roughly adequate: it says what is returned at a high level. It falls short on the optional publisher filter and on how the tool relates to its sibling release/history tools.

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 carry parameter meaning. 'Next N days' does explain the days parameter, but the publisher parameter (optional, defaults to null) is never mentioned, and the 1-90 range and defaults are left entirely to the raw schema titles.

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 names a specific resource ('scheduled data releases') and its scope ('the next N days'), which an agent can immediately map to a forward-looking economic calendar. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from sibling macro_latest_releases or macro_latest, leaving the forward-vs-actual distinction for the agent to infer.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus macro_latest_releases or macro_history, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The forward-looking calendar intent is only implied by the phrase 'next N days'.

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