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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds that it is free with no key required, that it returns IDs rather than data, and that the API caps paging depth and reports when exceeded. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the safety hint, though rate limits and result cardinality behavior are not covered.

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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with what the tool searches and follows with the practical details (free, ID output, paging, language). Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical domain list is slightly ornamental.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating that it returns series IDs usable with get_econ_series. Combined with paging and language notes, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the shape of a result item is only implied.

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 already 80%, and the description largely restates what the schema says for offset (paging) and lang (source-official translations, English fallback). It adds no new syntax or value guidance for query, source, or limit, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Econ Data Library catalog), quantifies scope (billions of series, hundreds of sources), and enumerates the domains covered. An agent can immediately tell this is a discovery/search tool distinct from the sibling get_econ_series, which it explicitly names as the consumer of its output.

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?

Makes the usage context clear (free, no key needed; results feed get_econ_series, so search here then fetch there), and explains paging via offset. It lacks explicit exclusions or a direct comparison to list_econ_sources, which an agent might reasonably consider for catalog browsing, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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