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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: results are date-ordered with blended probabilities, the payload matches /v1/calendar, and it is a paid endpoint ($0.01 via x402) with a docs link. It says nothing about authentication beyond payment, rate limits, truncation, or what happens when no Fed events fall in the window, so it is only partially transparent for a paid read tool.

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 first two sentences restate the same idea ('Upcoming Federal Reserve event resolutions' / 'Upcoming Federal Reserve market resolutions'), so the front is redundant and could be one sentence. The operational trailer (HTTP verb, price, docs) is well-placed, but the body does not fully earn its 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?

With no output schema, the description does convey return shape and ordering (delegating detail to '/v1/calendar'), which helps. However, with no annotations and zero parameter coverage, the two inputs — including the puzzling `category` enum on a pre-filtered endpoint — remain unexplained, so it is only adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 explains neither parameter. The required `days` window (1–90, default 14) and the `category` enum are left entirely to the raw schema, and the presence of a `category` filter on a Fed-pre-filtered tool is never reconciled by the text, leaving a real ambiguity about what setting it does.

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 and resource — returns 'Upcoming Federal Reserve market resolutions in date order with current blended probabilities' — and explicitly scopes itself as 'pre-filtered to Federal Reserve markets' with 'the same shape as /v1/calendar'. An agent can distinguish this from the generic probability_calendar and from probability_board_fed without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied — 'the forward calendar of Federal Reserve events an agent can position around' — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named sibling alternative (e.g. probability_calendar for the unfiltered view). The agent must infer that this is the Fed-scoped variant rather than being told to prefer it over its siblings.

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