Get a bank's publication calendar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavior: it returns only dates, caps large ranges and flags them with `truncated`, and interprets gaps as weekends/holidays/cadence. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 the primary use case and examples, then constraints and caveats. No wasted words; every sentence carries semantic weight.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational concerns: what is returned (dates only), what is excluded (rate values), and how range limits behave (truncation). It could be more explicit about the exact output shape, but the 'dates only' statement is a reasonable substitute given the missing output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description strengthens parameter understanding by prescribing '?year=YYYY or a from/to range', noting `year` is an alternative to from/to, and warning that large ranges are capped. This is genuine added meaning beyond 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 description names a specific action and resource — 'see WHICH dates a bank actually published a rate table' — and gives concrete example questions. It explicitly differentiates itself from history/rates tools by stating it 'Returns dates only, no rate values', so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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 frames the tool with use cases ('did the ECB publish on 2026-01-01?', 'how often does the US Treasury publish?') and notes it is 'available on every plan (unlike history)'. It doesn't name every sibling alternative or spell out when to choose get_official_rate_history or compare_official_rates, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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