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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of the data (weekly window and returned fields), which is useful context, but it does not disclose the default filtering (only high importance unless specified) or the language default, which materially affect 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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope and returned fields are stated immediately. Every element earns its place.

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 lookup with fully documented enum parameters and no output schema, the description covers the resource, time window, and returned fields adequately. The only gap is not flagging the default filters, which are in the schema but easy to miss.

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 100%, with all four enum parameters documented including defaults (Spanish language, high importance only). The description mentions 'importance' and the time window but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific resource (economic releases) and scope (this week or next week) and lists the data fields returned (time, importance, forecast, previous, actual). It clearly distinguishes the tool from the crypto-focused siblings like bitcoin_zone or funding, though it omits an explicit verb like 'returns'.

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 phrase 'This week's or next week's' implies the tool is for near-term scheduled releases, giving some usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mentions the default behaviors (Spanish language, high importance only) that affect what the agent will receive.

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