releases

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It notes that it cross-sources ABS and RBA calendars, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any quirks like rate limits, pagination, or how missing data is handled. This is adequate for a read-only calendar tool, but not rich.

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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the main functionality, providing when-to-use examples, and noting the cross-source nature. No redundant or vague wording; it is compact and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (optional parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the purpose, usage scenarios, and data sources. The only missing piece is an explicit description of the return format or structure, but since no output schema exists, the description could be slightly more detailed about what an event entry looks like. Still, it's adequate for selection and invocation.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the description adds minimal extra value. It does indirectly mention 'next N days' which maps to 'days_ahead', but essentially the schema already handles parameter semantics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool 'Get the upcoming AU economic release calendar' with specific details on content: ABS publication dates, RBA board meeting dates, and other scheduled data releases. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on release calendar events, not economic data values or analytics. The use-case examples further clarify its unique role.

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?

The description explicitly provides trigger scenarios: "Use this when an agent is asked 'when is the next CPI release?' or 'when is the RBA next deciding on rates?'". This gives clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or mention of alternative tools, but the specificity of the use cases compensates.

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