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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the returned field set and the noteworthy fact that indicatorId gives cross-week stable naming, but it doesn't define the 'current' window (calendar span), ordering, or how many events a default call returns — the behaviors an agent most needs for this tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field list is informative rather than repetitive. Slightly overpacked phrasing ('...and an indicatorId that names the indicator the same way every week') could be tightened.

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 usefully documents the return fields, and annotations cover safety. But for a calendar tool the critical unknowns — the time window covered by 'current', whether country/impact filtering is possible, and result ordering — are omitted, leaving the agent to discover them empirically.

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?

Only one parameter (limit) exists and schema description coverage is 0%; the description says nothing about it at all — it only lists output fields. Mitigating this, limit is an optional integer with default 40 and min/max 1–100 fully expressed in the schema, so the parameter is near self-documenting, keeping this at minimum-viable rather than lower.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus resource 'current economic releases', with an enumeration of returned fields (date, time, country, impact, actual, forecast, prior) and a stable indicatorId. An agent can tell this is a calendar/release listing rather than a time series like macro.series, 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?

No statement of when to use this versus macro.series or macro.yield_curve, no prerequisites, no exclusions. Only the word 'current' hints at scope, and it is undefined (how far forward or back). The agent must infer the use case entirely.

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