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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds real data semantics beyond them: the fixed scope of three series, the ten-year rolling window, and unit caveats (CPI as index, payroll in thousands). 'Read source notes' signals where authoritative caveats live, which is useful context not present in structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and contained in a few tight sentences with no filler. The telegraphic, comma-spliced style borders on choppy, but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. The remaining burden is scope and data semantics, which the description covers via the ten-year window and unit notes; only the relationship to sibling retrieval tools is left unaddressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the schema-coverage baseline of 4 applies. The description's framing of what the fixed series set contains is a reasonable substitute for parameter context.

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 clear verb+resource: it surfaces three official BLS US monthly series with their units, seasonal adjustment and freshness. This is understandable on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_us_economic_indicators or list_economic_indicators, so the agent cannot tell discovery-of-series from retrieval-of-values.

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?

'Rolling ten calendar years, not a full archive' gives a scope boundary that implicitly tells the agent when this tool is and isn't sufficient. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use condition is stated, so routing is left to inference.

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