econ_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining behavior such as timezone handling, default date ranges, pagination, or whether only future events are returned. It does not mention any permissions or rate limits. While not misleading, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema, leaving the agent unaware of important operational details.

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 extremely brief (one sentence), which is not appropriate for a tool with seven optional parameters and no annotations. It under-specifies rather than being concisely informative. A good concise description would front-load core usage guidance; this one provides only the basic action. It is not wordy but is overly terse, lacking necessary structure.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what 'economic calendar events' are, how the parameters interact, typical use cases, or any filtering nuances. An agent would have to guess at semantics not covered by the schema. This is far below the minimum viable level for such a parameter-rich tool.

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 100%, so all 7 parameters are already documented with types and meanings (e.g., 'Start date', 'Country code(s) comma-separated'). The description does not add any additional parameter context, but given complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. There is no extra value, but also no deficiency.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get economic calendar events'. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like econ_search (search for economic data) or econ_dataset (retrieve a specific dataset) by explicitly mentioning 'calendar events'. However, it does not elaborate on scope or contrast with relevant siblings beyond the resource name, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention common scenarios (e.g., 'use to fetch upcoming scheduled events'), nor does it distinguish from econ_search or econ_find. There is no exclusion criteria or context that would help an agent decide between this and other economic tools. The absence of any usage direction means the agent must rely solely on the name and schema.

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