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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses ordering ('sorted soonest first'), the data source (agencies' published calendars), and the access/pricing model ($0.01 via x402, GET /v1/econ/calendar). It does not state pagination, coverage window, or failure behavior, which keeps it out of the top score.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and the bracket cleanly packs endpoint, price and docs link. Sentences one and two partially restate the same 'all tracked US economic series' scope, a minor redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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, no parameters and no annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide to call it: what comes back, in what order, from where, and at what cost. Only the coverage window and response shape are left unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's use of 'Upcoming' correctly signals that there is no date-range or filter argument, but it never explicitly says the call takes no inputs.

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?

States a specific verb (release dates) and resource (US economic series), plus the exact scope ('all tracked series') and that CPI, payrolls, GDP, PCE, claims and housing are included. It is clearly distinguishable from the econ_series_* siblings, which return a single full series view.

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 line 'The cheap planning read before paying for a full series view' gives an explicit selection rule relative to the econ_series_* siblings, including the cost rationale. It stops short of naming a specific alternative tool or stating when this is not appropriate.

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