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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: an importance scale ('higher is more important') and the caveat that tentative dates may move, which tells the agent how much to trust the output. It says nothing about the look-ahead window or how the limit is applied.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the content list and the tentative-date caveat both front-loaded where the agent will see them.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-field explanation isn't needed, and the description covers scope and data reliability. The notable remaining gap is the horizon: 'upcoming' is never bounded (next week? next quarter?), which matters for deciding whether this tool answers the question.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter is documented there (default 10, max 50). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema does all the work; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope: future Polish macro releases (RPP decisions, CPI, wages, GDP, industrial output) with date, time and importance. The 'upcoming' framing plus 'decisions' separates it from get_macro_changes and get_macro_indicator, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'upcoming' scope implies this is the forward-looking calendar tool versus historical siblings like get_macro_changes, but the description never states when to use it or when to prefer get_macro_indicator/get_macro_snapshot. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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