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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields, which the agent would otherwise have no way to know since there is no output schema. It omits result-count limits or pagination behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and the resource, then the returned fields. Zero filler and nothing buried.

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 four optional filters all documented in the schema, this is nearly sufficient, and the description compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields. The remaining gap is routing guidance versus macro_history/macro_latest/macro_calendar.

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 100%: each of the four optional filters has an example or allowed-value list in the schema. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 ("the series catalog") plus the fields returned (ids, units, frequency, latest period, next release). That distinguishes it from data-fetching siblings like macro_history and macro_latest, though it never explicitly frames itself as the discovery step before those calls.

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?

Usage is only implied: searching a catalog suggests you run this to find series ids before pulling data elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the nine siblings.

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