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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the valuable context that the tool is paid, which is a behavioral trait not captured by annotations. However, it does not disclose any other behaviors like date-range filtering or output limitations.

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 extremely brief, almost a fragment. While it is concise and front-loaded with the key topic, it under-specifies the tool's functionality. The 'paid' caveat is useful but does not justify the lack of a proper sentence structure.

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 low complexity (two optional date parameters) and no output schema, the description should at least state that the tool returns economic events over a date range. It fails to do so, leaving the agent to infer from the name and schema example. The description is incomplete for reliable 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. The 'from' and 'to' parameters are only shown in the schema example without any explanatory text, and the description makes no mention of them, leaving their meaning and format entirely implicit.

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 identifies the resource as 'Economic events' and notes it is paid, but lacks a clear verb like 'list' or 'get'. It distinguishes from sibling calendar tools by subject matter (economic vs earnings/IPOs), but the purpose is understated and vague.

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 such as earnings_calendar or ipos_calendar. The only qualifier is 'paid', which hints at cost but does not explain appropriate usage contexts or exclusions.

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