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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is a zero-dependency static calendar with no upstream failure risk, and it is paid in USDC on Base, which informs cost and reliability expectations.

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 front-loaded with the primary use case and exclusions. It is a bit promotional with phrases like '100% uptime' and 'paid in USDC on Base,' but these add decision-relevant reliability and cost context without excessive length.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, specific macro events, year scope, exclusions, and reliability/cost characteristics. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

There are no input parameters, and the description explicitly confirms this with 'No input parameters.' Since there is nothing for the schema or description to elaborate on, the baseline of 4 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 states a specific verb and resource: it provides days remaining until major US macro events (FOMC, CPI, NFP). It clearly identifies the tool as a static 2026 macro calendar, which differentiates it from the finance, derivatives, and security sibling tools.

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 explicitly says when to use it: when planning trading schedules around major US macroeconomic volatility. It also explicitly states when not to use it: for real-time market price data or economic forecast consensus figures, which is clear exclusion guidance.

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