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

Annotations only carry readOnlyHint=true, yet the description discloses the response envelope, the fact that events carry no numeric values, the 6h cache, the hard 180-day refusal, the FRED source, and the critical source_status failure mode where errors return events=[] indistinguishably from a quiet calendar. This is exactly the beyond-annotation context an agent needs.

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?

Dense but every sentence carries decision-relevant information, with the most important caveats (no values, check source_status) front-loaded and the operational limits (days cap, cache) following. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by fully specifying the return shape ({days, events, count, source_status, error} and per-event fields), the error contract, and the source. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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% and the single param is documented, so baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining the semantic consequence of the bound (above 180 is REFUSED) and restating the default look-ahead of 90, which the schema already implies via maximum/minimum.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (upcoming US macro data-release dates), enumerates the 9 tracked releases, and explicitly delimits scope by excluding estimates, prior/consensus/actual values, and FOMC meeting dates. An agent can distinguish this from ol_earnings_calendar and other calendar siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear context (a forward-looking release schedule with a default 90-day look-ahead) and explicit boundaries (above 180 REFUSED, FOMC excluded). It does not name a specific alternative tool or spell out when-not-to-use beyond the FOMC exclusion, so it falls short of a full 5.

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