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

Reads as read-only via annotations, and the description adds real behavior beyond them: unresolved ids are 'reported, never dropped', the served URLs reflect CURRENT data rather than a frozen vintage, and the manifest is keyless while downloading the URLs requires a key. These are exactly the traits an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint.

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?

Front-loads the core definition, then the return shape, then the freshness caveat and auth note. Dense but every clause carries information; the middle enumeration is long but earns its place by explaining the return payload in the absence of an output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return payload (per-series URLs grouped by source, attribution, licence, unresolved ids) plus freshness and auth. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it ties 'ids' to exact catalog ids from search_econ_series and clarifies that 'source' expands to every series only when the source has at most 1,000. That extra constraint goes beyond the schema string.

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+resource ('citable bundle manifest ... for several econ series') and pins down scope precisely: up to 50 explicit ids or every series of one small source. An agent can distinguish this from get_econ_series or list_econ_sources purely from the text.

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?

Gives clear conditions for each input mode (50 ids versus a whole small source capped at 1,000 series) and states the key requirement for the download step. It does not name a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of a 5.

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