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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: labeled type and impact opinions, revision provenance, primary-source links, disclosure of disabled/stale sources, and an explicit no-guessing policy for unlinked parties. It omits pagination and return-shape behavior, but the data-integrity disclosures are meaningful additions.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, and the scope of coverage is front-loaded. However, the opening leads with data-quality attributes rather than the core purpose, slightly burying the lede.

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 15-parameter, no-required-arg tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain filtering, date semantics and pagination. It instead spends its budget on provenance claims, leaving the caller without enough to construct a correct query.

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% across 15 parameters, so the burden falls entirely on the description, which explains none of them. The type enum values are echoed implicitly ('regulatory, clinical, legal, sanctions') and 'dated deadlines' hints at dateField, but from/to, symbol, agency, sector, source, status, limit, offset, changed and upcoming are all left undocumented.

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 conveys the domain (regulatory, clinical, legal, sanctions and trade events worldwide) but never states a clear verb or the scope relative to siblings like catalysts.event or catalysts.changes. It reads more as a data-quality manifesto than a statement of what the tool returns, so an agent can't cleanly separate it from its siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (catalysts.event, catalysts.changes, macro.calendar), and no indication of when a plain event lookup should be preferred over this calendar. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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