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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by clarifying the time window (last year by default) and the behavior of unknown series ids (returns list of ids), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential rate limits or data freshness specifics, but the annotations carry the main safety burden, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns and the data frequency, while the second clarifies the default time range and the usage restriction. Every clause earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's relatively simple interface (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the main behavior (time range default), the parameter semantics (implied), and the data content. It lacks explicit handling of edge cases like invalid since formats, but that is minor for a read-only, idempotent tool. A 4 is justified because it does more than the bare minimum but isn't exhaustive.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (since and series) with formats and defaults. The description adds some context (e.g., default time window, comma-separated ids) but does not significantly enhance beyond the schema. It could have explained the series id format or examples, but the baseline of 3 is correct since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states the tool returns selected government Treasury yields and BLS series, with clear scope (daily vs monthly) and data types. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_county_context by naming the data sources (Treasury, BLS) and the research/education purpose, so an agent can identify it as the macroeconomic data tool.

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 implies when to use it: when Treasury or BLS data is needed, and explicitly notes the 'research and education only' constraint, which guides appropriate use. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling list and the specificity of the data make the intended use clear. No exclusion guidance is given for when not to use it, but the context is strong.

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