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

With readOnlyHint=true already signaling a safe read operation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it notes that actual data and surprise are included 'once printed', implying intra-period updates. It also states 'Same data as REST /calendar', providing external consistency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but efficiently structured: it front-loads the purpose with '[TIMING]' and a clear label, then concisely lists content, arguments, and a usage caveat. Every sentence adds value, and the inline arg documentation is compact.

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?

The tool is simple (3 optional params, no output schema). The description covers the data returned (macro releases, earnings with consensus/previous, actual/surprise) and states its non-directional nature. It lacks explicit return format details, but for a calendar feed the content is sufficiently specified. Given the absence of an output schema, this is a minor gap.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each argument: days_back range (0-90, default 7), days_ahead range (0-60, default 14), and event_class allowed values ('macro'|'earnings', optional). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 identifies the tool as a scheduled macro and earnings calendar, listing specific event types (CPI, NFP, FOMC, PPI, GDP) and tickers (NVDA, TSLA, MSFT). It distinguishes itself from siblings with the '[TIMING]' tag and 'not a direction call', making its scope unique and specific.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Context for timing/regime') and explicitly states what it is not for ('not a direction call'). However, it does not name alternative sibling tools for direction or other related queries, so it lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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