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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds valuable behavioral facts: weekly frequency, oldest-first ordering, and the option to return either net liquidity or a single FRED series. It does not explain output shape, units, or what happens when series is omitted vs. provided.

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 packs the formula, ordering, and series options into one sentence with no filler. It is dense but slightly overloaded; the long series list could arguably live in the schema, but it still earns its place given series is undocumented.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete on selection criteria and modes. It leaves ambiguous the return format, units, and whether 'components' are separate fields, which an agent would need when interpreting the result.

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 only 50%: series has no schema description, but the tool description compensates by listing the valid FRED series codes. The limit parameter is documented in the schema with default and semantics, and the description adds context for what the series parameter selects.

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 data: weekly US net liquidity with its formula, components, and ordering, or a specific FRED series. It doesn't use an explicit verb like 'retrieves,' and it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as macro_series, though the formula and series list make the purpose specific.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over macro_series, funding_rates, policy_rates, or other data tools. The 'or one FRED series' clause describes two modes of the tool but not the selection context or exclusions.

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