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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that actual and previous prints appear only after release, that a unit field is present, that consensus figures are excluded, and that the default window is 'last 7 days to next 30.' This is substantial transparency, though response ordering and pagination are not addressed.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads scope, then lists release types, states output characteristics, and closes with the exclusion and default window. There is no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

The description covers scope, source, output fields, exclusions, and default window, which is strong given the optional parameters and no annotations. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about timestamps, ordering, or how importance maps to release types would make it fully complete.

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 schema documents from/to as YYYY-MM-DD and gives an enum for importance, while the description adds the useful default-window behavior that affects how missing from/to parameters are interpreted. This exceeds the bare schema, but importance is not semantically explained beyond its enum values.

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 specifies a precise resource: 'Scheduled US releases from the agencies' own calendars' and enumerates the covered categories (CPI, PPI, payrolls, FOMC, etc.). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly stating 'No consensus figures,' which separates it from calendar-like siblings.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for scheduled official US releases with actual/previous values, not consensus estimates. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as macro_series or earnings_calendar, so it stops short of a 5.

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