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

Annotations are empty, so description carries full burden. It does disclose that output shapes depend on SCB markup (not a stable API), which is useful. However, it does not mention that this is read-only (though annotations has readOnlyHint=true, which is actually not contradicted but also not reinforced). No behavior about rate limits, pagination, or any other constraints beyond the fallback note. It's somewhat helpful but not comprehensive; the lack of annotations means more is needed, and this description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the dependency on SCB markup.

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?

Description is moderately concise, front-loaded with the main purposeable. Some redundancy (e.g., 'publishing calendar' repeated), but overall efficient. One extra note about field shapes depending on SCB markup is valuable. Slightly long but acceptable.

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 8 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, description covers key usage patterns, date ranges, form filtering, and important caveat about markup dependence. It doesn't explain response structure but that's not required without output schema. Sibling differentiation is strong. Missing explicit note on authentication or rate limits, but no annotations indicate those are needed.

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 100% with descriptive parameter details (e.g., 'from' explains the Custom mode requirement). Description adds semantics by explaining that dates only work in Custom period, and gives natural-language examples like 'next month' for period, plus clarifies subject codes. This adds meaning beyond the schema's raw parameter names.

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?

Description clearly states what it does: returns upcoming/past releases from SCB's publishing calendar, with specific fields (product code, reference period, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tool scb_se_statistical_news by explicitly noting that for released text, use that other tool. Verb is specific and resource is clear.

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?

Explicitly gives usage examples: 'what is SCB releasing next week', 'när publicerar SCB KPI', and explains that for already-published content, use scb_se_statistical_news. Clearly states when to use this vs. the sibling tool. Also notes backwards reading over a date range.

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