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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the semantic context that events are 'macro' and 'may move the market' but does not disclose the output format, pagination, or any related constraints. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description carries a moderate burden and provides only minimal behavioral detail beyond that.

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 a single concise sentence, effectively communicating the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter. However, the use of Polish may hinder universal understanding for an agent expecting English, but this does not affect conciseness. It is efficient with no extraneous words.

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 simple read-only calendar tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not specify what the response contains (e.g., event dates, impact levels) or clarify the differentiation from similar calendars like earnings. Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail on the return structure would improve completeness. The tool is relatively low complexity, so a 3 is reasonable.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the lone parameter daysAhead, including its type and default value. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema fully documents them. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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, 'Kalendarz zdarzeń makro, które mogą poruszyć rynkiem' (Calendar of macro events that may move the market), clearly identifies the resource as a calendar of macroeconomic events and its purpose. It is distinct from siblings like get_earnings_calendar by focusing on macro events. However, it does not explicitly mention the retrieval action, though the tool name implies it. Overall, the core function is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_earnings_calendar or get_market_anomalies. It does not state conditions, exclusions, or recommend alternatives. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the resource type, which is insufficient for selecting among many calendar-like tools.

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