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

Annotations only cover the safe-read profile, but the description goes well beyond: default filtering to indicator-linked releases vs include_unlinked, the state machine (scheduled/postponed/released/figures_loading/published/cancelled), origin 'publisher_calendar' vs 'estimated' with a mandate to label estimates and cite confidence, and time_known semantics. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Purpose and window are front-loaded, then examples, then filters, then return shape - a logical order. It is dense and long (~400 words), and a few clauses restate schema defaults, but nearly every sentence carries semantic or behavioral payload.

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 fully by spelling out the response envelope, the fields of each release, the result object structure, the meaning of change units (points vs percent), the as_of caveat, and the citation requirement. Nothing needed to call or interpret the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretive meaning: worked example payloads per filter, the default window behavior, that place returns releases of the series available for that place, and that country only disambiguates place when combined. The remaining gap is minor syntax detail already carried by the schema.

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 first sentence states a specific resource (scheduled official statistical releases from named publishers) with a concrete scope (30 days back to 90 days ahead, read daily). It is clearly distinguishable from data-retrieval siblings like get_value or get_series because it returns schedules, not figures.

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?

It gives explicit trigger questions ('When is the next US CPI release?', 'What does Eurostat publish this week?') and a separate mode for past results ('what did the jobs report show?' -> pass from in the past). It also names the sibling to use for post-release corrections: call get_revisions for later revisions.

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