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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the system knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context about the heuristic approach (release-calendar proximity, indicator-level) and async MCP Tasks support, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tight two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the async support detail placed second. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 tool is straightforward (3 params, read-only), but there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the output looks like or how the risk score should be interpreted. The heuristic details are useful, but without return-value context, the description isn't 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 input schema fully documents all three parameters with descriptions, examples, and defaults, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the explanatory weight.

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 clearly states the tool's function: score upcoming releases for a currency pair using release-calendar proximity and indicator-level heuristics. It names a specific resource (currency pair releases) and method, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling task tools like event_impact_replay_task or pair_intel_task, making it clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions MCP Tasks support but does not specify appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the large sibling set, this lack of usage direction is a notable gap.

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