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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data nature are covered. The description adds useful context that all times are UTC, but says nothing about data freshness, coverage of sources, or rate limits — reasonable but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the returned-field list is front-loaded and the UTC note is tacked on efficiently. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a 4-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what fields come back and the timezone, but leaves window semantics, defaults, and result size/limits unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 50%: hoursBack and currencies are documented in the schema, but minImpact and hoursAhead rely on defaults and bounds alone. The description does not explain what minImpact=medium filters out or what the hoursAhead window means, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the resource (macro/economic events) and enumerates the returned fields (impact, forecast, previous, actual), so an agent knows exactly what it is looking at. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the domain (calendar events vs. quotes, screener, sessions, currency strength) is self-evident.

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 only guidance is the parenthetical '(and optionally recent)', which vaguely maps to hoursBack but never states when to use this tool versus get_currency_strength or get_market_sessions. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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