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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the temporal 'current' scope and the listed return fields; it does not disclose pagination, default limit behavior, timezone, or sorting, so it adds solid but limited behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource and packs the output dimensions into a compact list. There is no filler, repetition, or structural complexity.

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 list with one optional parameter, the description supplies the output field names and the 'current' scope, which is the core of what an agent needs. Without an output schema, a little more detail on ordering, timezone, or limit behavior would make it fully complete, but the gap is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 single optional limit parameter is not mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, the parameter is semantically self-evident from its name and constraints (default 40, max 100, min 1), so the schema carries enough meaning and the description adds no additional parameter insight.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('current economic releases'), and it enumerates the meaningful output fields such as event date, time, country, impact, actual, forecast, and prior values. It is clearly a calendar tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like macro.series or macro.yield_curve.

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 phrase 'current economic releases' implies this is for the economic calendar rather than historical series, and 'current' suggests a live or dynamic dataset. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as macro.series or macro.yield_curve.

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