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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining subtle behaviors: elapsed means the scheduled moment passed, not that the agency published; schedule_basis='inferred' marks cadence-derived dates; cancelled/postponed rows return coverage=null; elapsed SCHEDULED occurrences include coverage with uid and relevance scores. It also clarifies days_back semantics around UTC midnight. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral disclosure that an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 long but dense and mostly front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, with sibling routing early. The later caveats about phase, schedule_basis, coverage, and cancellation behavior are necessary for correct interpretation of results. It could be tightened slightly, but the length is justified by the complexity of the calendar semantics.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what data is included, how to filter, how to interpret elapsed/inferred/cancelled states, what coverage contains, and where to go for related data. The references to alphai_macro, alphai_article, and alphai_tickers close the remaining contextual gaps. Nothing critical is missing for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema already describes days_back, days_ahead, event_keys, and importance. The description adds meaningful semantic nuance beyond the schema: days_back counts from today's UTC midnight so default 0 still includes today's already-released prints with coverage, and event occurrences carry stable uids and phase semantics. This elevates it above the baseline.

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 a specific verb+resource: it provides the official US economic calendar with scheduled macro releases. It lists concrete event types (FOMC, CPI, PPI, jobs report, GDP, PCE, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings: alphai_macro for post-release interpretation and alphai_tickers for earnings dates. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage direction: ask it about upcoming macro releases, then use alphai_macro once a release is out. It also states an exclusion boundary: 'This tool is US MACRO only' and redirects earnings-date lookups to alphai_tickers.next_report_date. It even routes story depth retrieval to alphai_article, so the agent knows exactly when to pick this tool over alternatives.

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