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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them: per-call cost ($0.002/call), the fact that coverage is limited to events 'seen in the feed', that times are ET, and that each event carries the assets it usually moves. It stops short of stating window truncation or empty-result behavior, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then use cases, then cost, then routing. The closing clause ('Use for upcoming scheduled macro/earnings catalysts') partially repeats the opening and the earlier use-case sentence, so there is some redundancy, but each sentence still carries weight.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned content (event times, affected assets). Cost, scope, and the sibling boundary are all present. A hint about the maximum 60-day window or behavior when no events match would make it fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's enumeration of event families loosely maps to the `types` filter and 'next N days' maps to `days`, but it says nothing about `min_impact` or how `universe` scopes earnings, so no real meaning is added beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Upcoming scheduled catalysts for the next N days') and enumerates the exact content classes (macro prints, FOMC, auctions, earnings) with their timing basis (ET). It explicitly separates itself from the Treasury-auction sibling, so an agent can choose between them without opening a 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?

Gives two concrete use cases ('avoid holding through a print', 'schedule polling') plus an explicit routing rule: for Treasury auction details use treasury_auctions. That is when-to-use, why-to-use, and when-to-use-something-else in one place.

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