Fomc Calendar List

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that records are 'sourced' with a source_url, which is genuine provenance context, but it is silent on pagination behavior, the semantics of mode='delta' and source_checkpoint, and default result size.

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 tight, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It earns its place but is under-sized for a seven-parameter tool, so brevity edges toward terseness rather than pure efficiency.

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?

The output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover safety. But a 7-parameter tool with a delta/checkpoint sync mechanism and no explanation of it leaves an agent unable to use a substantial part of the interface correctly.

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 description coverage is 43%, so the description needs to compensate and does not — it says nothing about mode, limit, offset, or source_checkpoint, the four undocumented parameters. Only the since/until/outcome semantics are carried by the schema itself.

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 the specific resource (FOMC decisions) and enumerates the returned fields (date, hike/cut/hold, target range, source_url), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It lacks an explicit action verb and any statement of scope/ordering, but the tool's identity is unambiguous, and no sibling covers FOMC data.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling macro tools it might be combined with. Nothing tells the agent that this is a filtered, paginated listing or when the delta mode would be appropriate.

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