get_event_calendar

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful behavioral trait: only the top N events are returned, and it scopes the event categories. It does not discuss read-only guarantees, data freshness, or response shape, but those are less critical for a simple read-oriented calendar lookup.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the resource, scopes the event categories in parentheses, and ends with the output rule. Every element earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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, the description covers the core purpose and the Top-N limitation. However, it lacks parameter detail, does not describe the output format, and does not disambiguate from get_official_release_snapshot. It is adequate but leaves several practical details to inference.

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 has 0% description coverage and provides only names, types, and defaults. The description's 'Top-N' hints at the top_n parameter and 'recent' loosely maps to days, but neither parameter is explicitly defined and the defaults are not restated. Some meaning is added, but not enough to fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 identifies a tool that retrieves a calendar of recent important official events and enumerates the covered categories (BOJ/Fed/CPI/NFP/PCE/GDP/MOF). It also notes the Top-N return behavior. However, it does not contrast itself with the closely named sibling get_official_release_snapshot, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 intended usage is implied by 'recent important official events' and 'only returns Top-N', which suggests when an agent should query this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance, particularly against the similar get_official_release_snapshot.

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