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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by naming the data source, the year window served, the flags applied to results, and a 1-credit cost. It does not describe result ordering or exact field shape, but that is minor given the annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and scope, then coverage limits and cost. The audience sentence ('For traders, journalists and planners scheduling around Fed days') is the weakest line and could be cut, but the rest is dense and earns its space.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies source, scope, result flags, coverage limits and cost — everything needed to call it correctly. Only the precise return structure (e.g., whether dates come as a flat list or per-meeting records) is left implicit.

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 optional year parameter is documented with a default, so baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by constraining the acceptable values to the years the calendar page actually lists (recent and next year), warning the agent off older years.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: FOMC meeting dates for a given year, pulled from the Board's official calendar page. It also names what is annotated in the result (SEP/dot-plot meetings, notation votes, tentative dates), which separates it cleanly from siblings like fomc_minutes_latest or fed_monetary_policy_releases.

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?

Gives clear coverage boundaries: the calendar page lists only recent and next year, and older years live on the Board's historical pages, so an agent knows when this tool will not serve the request. It states an audience (traders, journalists, planners) rather than naming the sibling tools to use instead, so it stops short of explicit alternative routing.

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