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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds materially useful context the annotations cannot carry: the paid x402 model at $0.02 per call and the accepted payment rails (Base or Solana). It does not state whether results include prior actuals or revisions.

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?

One sentence establishes the capability with examples, a second gives the usage cue, and a third carries pricing. Front-loaded and free of padding, though the price line reads as a bolted-on operational note rather than an integrated part of the definition.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with an enum-constrained input and annotations covering safety, this is nearly sufficient: an agent knows what it gets, when to reach for it, and what it costs. The only gap is that the return shape (a list of release dates, presumably with source/date fields) is only loosely implied since no output schema exists.

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% and the single `days` parameter is a constrained enum (30/60/90) with its own description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the lookahead window, which is fine given the baseline but leaves no extra value.

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 FRED economic data release dates' — and enumerates concrete examples (CPI, jobs report, GDP, Treasury rates). This implicitly separates it from the historical-data siblings like get_series or get_value_by_date, though no sibling is named.

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 clause 'Use this to find out when the next major economic data will be published' gives a clear forward-looking usage context, which is enough to distinguish it from historical lookups. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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