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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds genuinely behavioral context beyond them: dataset breadth (180 countries, some back to 1920), that results carry each series' ticker and actual covered span, and that the corpus is too large to enumerate.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: domain scope first, dataset scale second, result shape third, parameter format last. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the key scoping fact is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, leaving little for the description to carry. It covers domain, scale and the `country` format, with only `limit` semantics missing — a minor gap for a read-only search 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and only partially discharges it. It documents the `country` parameter well, including the accepted formats ('Switzerland' or ISO-3 'CHE'), and the opening clause implies what `query` matches, but `limit` (an oddly string-typed field defaulting to 25) is never mentioned at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find a macro-economic series by name or country') and enumerates the content domain (CPI, rates, indices, house prices, commodities), which is far more than the title restates. The closing line 'they are searched rather than listed' implicitly separates it from the get_macro_series and list_* siblings, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 clear context for when to reach for search ('There are tens of thousands of series, so they are searched rather than listed'), which is a real usage constraint. It does not, however, name the sibling (get_macro_series) or state the when-not condition explicitly, so the agent must infer that retrieval by known ticker goes elsewhere.

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