Upcoming MPC announcement dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool returns the published schedule (typically a year or more ahead) and that each result includes a calendar-day count, which indicates a read-only, list-like behavior. It does not mention edge cases like schedule updates or timezone handling, but for a simple zero-parameter read tool the core behavior is transparently described.

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 two concise sentences, with the primary purpose stated first and the alternative-tool pointer in the second. Every clause adds meaningful information, and there is no repetition of the title or obvious filler.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It explains the scope ('every upcoming'), the scheduling horizon, and the day-count detail, which fully covers contextual needs for a simple listing tool. The reference to the sibling tool also places it well in the surrounding tool ecosystem.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description needs to add no parameter-level detail. The description still enhances understanding by specifying that the returned schedule is the published MPC announcement schedule and that results are upcoming dates with day counts, which is useful context beyond the empty 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clearly defined resource ('every upcoming Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee announcement date on the published schedule'), including the extra detail that each date comes with the number of calendar days until it. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_next_mpc_meeting by contrasting the scope (all upcoming vs. only the next).

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 explicit usage guidance by stating 'Use get_next_mpc_meeting when only the next date is needed,' naming the alternative tool and the specific condition under which it should be preferred. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use versus when-not-to-use direction expected.

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