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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — a forward window bounded to 1-30 days and the fact that each event carries historical first-hour move statistics — but says nothing about what happens when no market is supplied, whether results are filtered or all-markets, or how many events typically come back.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and appends the differentiating feature in one parenthetical-free clause. Zero filler and nothing redundant.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the essentials are present, but the role of 'market' and the zero-required-parameter default path are left to inference. An agent can call it, but cannot predict whether omitting 'market' returns global coverage or a single instrument.

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%: the 'market' enum is self-documented, while 'days' has no schema description — the description partly compensates by stating the 'next 1-30 days' window. However it never explains what the 'market' parameter actually does (filters events? scopes the measured move?) or what the default behavior is when it is omitted.

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 (upcoming economic releases: CPI, jobs, central banks) plus the distinguishing payload — the measured first-hour move after past releases of the same kind. No sibling tool covers macro events, so an agent can route here unambiguously 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?

Usage is implied: it is a forward-looking events calendar, so the agent infers it should be called when planning around or contextualizing macro-event volatility. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of how it complements sibling tools like get_candles or get_market_snapshot.

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