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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: it returns canonical names, descriptions, instruments, maturities, coverage, pagination, and a source hash, and it clarifies the data provenance as direct Board data.

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-loads the core action and source in the first sentence, then efficiently covers returns, usage examples, and provenance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague filler.

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 search/catalog tool with no output schema, the description explains the return payload and usage context adequately. Safety and idempotency are carried by annotations, parameter details by the schema, and source distinction is clarified, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters documented in the input schema, including the response_format enum and limit/offset defaults. The description does not add syntax, matching behavior, or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search') and resource ('active business-day series') within a clearly named source ('Federal Reserve Board H.15 snapshot'). It distinguishes itself from FRED proxies and from sibling history/spread tools, so an agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage examples ('find the Fed funds series', 'what Treasury maturities are available?') and says to use it 'to resolve a series before a history/spread call', which implicitly routes to the H.15 history and spread siblings. It does not explicitly name those alternative tools or state when-not to use this search, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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