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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context about coverage: it includes both scheduled and unscheduled meetings, indicates which meetings carry SEP/statement/press-conference/implementation-note, and mentions minutes links with release dates. It does not add auth, rate-limit, or pagination details, but those are not critical here.

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 resource and scope, then lists returned fields, then gives example queries. It is informative and mostly free of waste, though the long enumerated field list makes it slightly heavier than necessary.

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 and only one optional parameter, the description appropriately carries the burden of explaining return values: it names the meeting fields, SEP/statement/press-conference/implementation-note flags, minutes links with release dates, and next_meeting/days_until. An agent has enough information to call and interpret the tool 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional 'year' parameter and already documents its default and historical range. The description adds no additional parameter syntax, format, or constraint beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific resource (FOMC meeting calendar) and enumerates the fields it returns (dates, SEP, statement, press-conference, implementation-note, minutes links, next_meeting, days_until). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like fomc_minutes by focusing on the calendar rather than minutes content, but it does not explicitly name or route away from those alternatives.

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?

Three example questions ('when is the next FOMC meeting', 'what are the Fed meeting dates in 2026', 'when do the minutes for the July meeting come out') give clear context for when to use the tool. No explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance is provided, so it stops short of a 5.

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