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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: it includes source and fetch date, removes dates superseded by published results, and declares truncation. The empty-result caveat is a genuinely useful semantic warning an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the core action and time window come first, with behavioral caveats appended in compact clauses. No sentence is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining what the response contains (source, fetch date, truncation flag, superseded-date removal). Only the limit parameter's meaning is left implicit, a minor gap for a two-param read tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the param burden. It explains the meaning and range of daysAhead ('next 1 to 90 days, including today in Warsaw'), which matches the schema bounds, but the limit parameter goes unmentioned and no guidance is given on default sizing or truncation interaction.

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 ('Get known scheduled GPW reports') plus the exact scope ('next 1 to 90 days, including today in Warsaw'). It also distinguishes itself from a personal watchlist, so an agent can separate it from the sibling tools that cover dividends, ratios, prices, and company search.

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 'public market calendar, without a personal watchlist' clause gives a clear condition for when this tool applies. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative when a personal view is needed, so it stops short of the explicit when/when-not/alternatives tier.

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