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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context on top: the backing store, a ~2-month retention limit that bounds valid input, and the UTC default. It stops short of explaining what 'news risk' actually contains in the response.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the resource and scope come first, followed by the date defaults and filters. Every clause carries operational information.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and 'news risk' is never unpacked — an agent cannot tell whether it gets a list of events, a risk score, counts, or severity ratings. Input-side coverage is solid, but the output side is a real gap for a tool whose payload is its whole reason to exist.

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 schema already documents all three parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal value — it restates the date default and clarifies that symbol filters via currency pairs (EURUSD, XAUUSD) rather than raw instrument names, plus the retained-window constraint on date.

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 concrete resource and scope: economic-calendar news risk for a single day, sourced from ChartGaze DB. The 'for a day' framing implicitly separates it from the weekly sibling get_economic_calendar_week, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It gives concrete operating guidance — default is today UTC, pass date=YYYY-MM-DD for any day in the cached window, symbol narrows by currency — which is enough to call it correctly. However it never says when to prefer this over get_economic_calendar_week or get_market_events, so the choice among siblings remains implied.

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