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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context: events are sourced from official institutional schedules and every entry includes a primary source URL, indicating provenance and read-only nature. However, it does not mention limitations or error conditions.

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 two clear sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core functionality and adds a valuable note about source URLs.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and its data sources. It lacks an explicit output structure description, but that is easily inferred from the event types listed.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. It does reinforce the types of institutions and report types mentioned in schema, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond that.

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 explicitly states the tool lists upcoming central-bank rate decisions, data releases, and meeting dates from official schedules, which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on country indicators and historical data.

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 makes the tool's niche clear but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is implied given the subject matter (economic calendar) vs. sibling indicator tools, but no direct guidance is given.

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