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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: history is null until a cell accrues, the library 'never manufactures' conditionals, and the data is identical to REST /event-outlook. This adds significant context about data reliability and consistency.

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 well-structured: it front-loads the purpose, provides an illustrative example, and adds behavioral caveats. The parenthetical and example add some length, but every sentence contributes unique information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify the return format. It provides a sample snippet and mentions null history, but it does not describe the full result structure or the effect of days_ahead, leaving moderate gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 only parameter, days_ahead (optional, default 14), is not mentioned in the description. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without any guidance on how this parameter affects the output.

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 provides upcoming macro releases and earnings joined with measured historical reaction distributions, with a concrete example ('CPI prints Thursday — the last N hot prints moved SPX/BTC X%'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying 'Not a direction call' and referencing the same data via REST /event-outlook.

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 implies when to use this tool (for historical reaction context, not direction calls) and provides an exclusion ('Not a direction call'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as get_economic_calendar or get_signal, leaving the comparison implicit.

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