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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not responsible for stating safety. It adds value by specifying the return format (CSV with fields id,name,description,frequency,unit,source) and the optional search behavior. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a concrete expectation of the output.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the search option is stated, and the return format is listed efficiently. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick parsing.

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 low-complexity tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential points: what it lists, the optional filter, and the exact CSV columns. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that this returns definitions rather than actual data values, but the word 'definitions' makes that clear. Given the simple nature of the tool, this is adequately complete.

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 schema description covers the single parameter (query) at 100%, explaining its purpose and providing examples. The description repeats the optional-search notion but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics well, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('macroeconomic series definitions'). It is clear what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_macro_data, which likely retrieves actual data, leaving the differentiation to inference. A name reference would have made it fully 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_macro_data or get_indices. It only mentions an optional search by name, which is a usage detail but not a decision rule. The agent is left to infer that this lists definitions rather than data, and there is no mention of when not to use it.

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