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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile for this lookup tool. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that times are US Eastern — but says nothing about lookahead/backfill behavior, whether the range is forward-looking, or result ordering. It meets the lower bar set by the annotations without exceeding it much.

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 long parenthetical event list is dense but each item earns its place by helping an agent match user queries like 'CPI' or 'JOLTS' to this tool.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the agent still lacks the return shape (fields per release, event-time format) and the interaction between the two date parameters. The timezone note is a good start, but a 60-day-capped two-parameter tool deserves more specificity.

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 50%: 'start' is documented with a YYYY-MM-DD format and 'today' default, but 'days' has no description and a hidden 1-60 cap. The description only says 'date range', leaving ambiguous whether 'days' counts forward from 'start', overrides it, or interacts with it — real ambiguity the description should resolve.

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 names a specific resource (scheduled US economic releases) and enumerates concrete event types (FOMC, CPI, jobs, PCE, GDP, PPI, retail sales, ISM, JOLTS), so an agent can immediately tell what data comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the sibling set (seasonality/asset tools) is unrelated enough that differentiation isn't needed.

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 description states what the tool returns but never says when to call it, what question it answers, or what alternatives exist. There is no exclusion or prerequisite guidance, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the resource name.

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