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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the specific return fields (quarter, bundled GDP estimate, times in Eastern/UTC/local), the default London timezone, and a 1-credit cost. It stops short of describing caching or failure behavior, but this is a low-risk read tool.

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 as a direct question, followed by tightly packed sentences that each add something: return contents, audience, exclusions, cost. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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 burden of describing the return payload, and it does so precisely (release date, quarter covered, bundled GDP estimate, three timezone renderings). For a one-parameter read-only calendar lookup, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 timezone parameter is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including the default Europe/London and IANA format examples. The description echoes 'your time zone (London by default)' but adds no new format or edge-case guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Returns the next scheduled release from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis calendar that includes national corporate profits.' It also disambiguates scope by naming the bundled GDP estimate and explicitly excluding profit figures and company earnings dates, so an agent can separate it from next_gdp_release or bea_release_dates_for_year.

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?

Names the intended audience ('equity strategists and economists tracking aggregate US profits') and the when-not condition ('gives the schedule only, not the profit figures or company earnings dates'). It does not explicitly route to a sibling tool, but the scope exclusion is enough to prevent most misselection.

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