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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world corpus), and the description adds genuine context beyond them: what each result contains (id, latest value, date, unit, source), which series categories carry license/attribution, and a mandatory citation obligation with exact wording. It omits result limits/count behavior, but the citation requirement is a meaningful behavioral addition.

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?

Purpose and keyword examples are front-loaded, then return shape, then citation rules. The citation sentence is dense and quotes boilerplate verbatim, which costs some space, but every sentence carries actionable 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?

With no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating returned fields, and it adds the unusual citation contract an agent would otherwise miss. The remaining gap is operational: no mention of limit defaults or how many results to expect.

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% and the query param is documented merely as 'Keywords'. The description compensates by illustrating the style of acceptable keywords, which is real added meaning for query. However, 'limit' is never mentioned — no default, no guidance on when to raise it toward the max of 25 — so half the parameters remain unexplained.

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 and resource ('Find market and macro data series ... by keyword') and immediately grounds it with eight concrete example queries spanning commodities, power, equities and stress indicators. The keyword-search framing also implicitly separates it from sibling lookups like get_series (fetch by id) and search_releases (search releases).

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 implied rather than stated: returning ids suggests this is the discovery step before get_series, but the description never says so, nor when to prefer search_releases. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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