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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses default ordering (newest first), upcoming ordering (soonest first, counted from the end of the data), and a genuine data limitation — future events carry only their kind, not their content. It even flags cost ('one call costs one answer'). It stops short of stating pagination behavior beyond `limit` or any permission requirements.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then the alternative, then mode behavior, then parameters — a sensible order with little waste. The opening clause is slightly run-on and the parameter recap in the final sentences borders on restating the schema.

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 and no annotations, seven parameters, yet the description covers result shape, ordering in both modes, the epistemic limit on upcoming events, and parameter routing. An agent could call this correctly from the description alone; only pagination and error behavior are left implicit.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description largely restates the same facts (q matches name/aliases, kind values, days only with upcoming). The one piece of added meaning is framing since/until as bounding when an event 'became known' rather than when it occurs, which clarifies a subtle knowledge-time distinction.

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 and resource ('List dated events') and immediately grounds it with concrete examples (CPI releases, FOMC statements, options expiries) plus the three fields each record carries. It explicitly separates itself from get_topic_outcomes, so an agent can choose without opening either 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 an explicit when-to-use ('find or date a single event') and a named alternative with its own condition ('for every event of a kind together with what followed each, use get_topic_outcomes'). It also routes between the two modes, default known-events versus `upcoming` scheduled events, with the ordering each uses.

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