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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false) already signal a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by revealing the default time window and that the actual value appears 'once it prints', implying the data is dynamic over time. It also mentions the ability to widen the range or filter by country, which are useful behavioral details not conveyed by annotations alone.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and usage details in the second. Every phrase adds informational value—no repetition, fluff, or redundant content. It is compact yet comprehensive for its scope.

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 read-only calendar tool with all parameters documented and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the key aspects: what data is returned (forecasts, prior, actual, Fed speakers, auction times), default behavior, and filtering options. It does not detail response format or pagination, but given the simple nature and the annotations covering safety, the description is adequately 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The description adds value by explaining the interaction of days_back and days_ahead ('Defaults to yesterday through the next 7 days; widen ...') and clarifying the country parameter ('filter to one country'). This reinforces the schema's meaning and provides usage context beyond the raw parameter definitions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'Economic releases with forecasts, prior values and the actual once it prints, plus Fed speakers and auction times.' This is specific about the resource (economic calendar) and its contents, distinguishing it from siblings like get_auctions (auction details) and get_fed_roster (Fed membership). It also notes the default date range and filtering options, enriching purpose clarity.

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 description gives practical usage hints ('Defaults to yesterday through the next 7 days; widen days_back and days_ahead to see more, or filter to one country') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or point to sibling tools for other needs. While purpose is clear, guidance on selection is implicit, not explicit.

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