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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds 'Read-only public research data. No account access, no order placement or fund transfers.' This provides additional safety context beyond the annotations and is consistent with 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 four short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core purpose, routing, safety, and disclaimer. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words.

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 full schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, and safety constraints. The routing logic addresses key alternatives among siblings, making it sufficient for correct invocation.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters with details like defaults and sorting. The tool description does not mention parameters at all, so it adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Filtered release calendar in a date window', clearly identifying the resource and the action. It explicitly contrasts with get_macro_summary and get_macro_indicator, making the purpose and differentiation unmistakable.

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 provides explicit routing logic: 'Zero-arg dashboard→get_macro_summary. Indicator snapshot or series→get_macro_indicator.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over those siblings, and also states read-only and no account access for safe usage.

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