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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's main contribution is the non-obvious output behavior: the data source appears once in a note after the result, not per row. That is genuine behavioral context an agent could not get from annotations or schema. It does not discuss rate limits or coverage gaps for untracked series.

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 purpose, then default window, then the source-note quirk, so the most important facts come first. The Japanese sentence duplicates the English content, which is localization overhead rather than new information, but it is brief.

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 must carry return-value expectations, and it does explain that results are a schedule bounded by date and that the source is in a trailing note. Coverage of what fields each entry contains is thin, and it does not clarify what 'tracked' series means in practice.

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%, with both from/to documented including their defaults, so the schema carries the load. The description only restates the 30-day default in prose, adding no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 release dates for the tracked macroeconomic series') with examples (CPI, jobs report, GDP) and a default scope of the next 30 days. It is clear what it returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like get_earnings_calendar or get_dividends_calendar.

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 default window and the 93-day maximum (in the schema) imply when this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_economic_series or get_economic_indicators, which return actual data rather than schedules. The distinction is inferable from the names but not stated.

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