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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses genuinely useful behavior: unscheduled dates are omitted, the file does not indicate which period each date covers, output carries Eastern, UTC and local times, and the call costs 1 credit. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs before trusting the result.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then limitations, then cost. The short-name list is duplicated in the schema, and the audience sentence is slightly soft, but nothing is padded.

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 carries the return-value burden and does state that one scheduled date per entry comes back with three time zones, plus the omission caveat. Ordering of results and any pagination or format detail are not specified, which is a minor gap for a calendar-listing tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it enumerates the accepted short names and confirms a full BEA release name also works, and clarifies that the local time fields are driven by the time-zone argument. The year default and range are left entirely to the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource (return all dates in a year for one BEA release) and gives a concrete example that separates it from the sibling single-date tools like next_gdp_release. An agent can tell exactly what it gets without opening the schema.

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?

It names the audience ("planners and analysts building a year's calendar"), which implies when to use it, but never routes to alternatives such as next_gdp_release or next_pce_inflation_release for a single upcoming date. Usage is implied rather than stated, and there is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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