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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral details: the live source, HTTP 503 behavior with no charge when upstream data is unavailable, the cost per call ($0.10 USDC), and the data_source field for provenance. This adds substantial value beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with core content but contains redundancy: the 503 behavior is stated twice. It also includes some necessary details (cost, provenance) but could be more concise. Overall structure is adequate but not tight.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what data is returned, the source, cost, failure mode, and provenance field. It lacks an explicit description of the return format, but the listed content and the data_source field give reasonable completeness.

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 has one optional 'measure' parameter with enums, but the description does not explain how to use 'measure' or what each enum value maps to. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by clearly mapping the listed indicators (CPI, PCE, breakeven, etc.) to the parameter values, leaving ambiguity.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: 'Live inflation benchmarks from FRED' with a specific list of indicators (CPI, PCE, breakevens, components). It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_bls_inflation_components by specifying FRED as the source and the types of measures.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (when live FRED inflation benchmarks are needed) and notes the live source and policy implications. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so usage guidance is more implied than explicit.

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