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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context that this is a self-hosted snapshot of official Board data and clarifies the data source. It does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or caching behavior, but given the strong annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose and return fields. It then gives concrete usage examples and a clarifying note about the data source. It is concise without being terse, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's role.

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 tool with no output schema, the description clearly states what it returns (canonical series names, descriptions, instruments, maturities, coverage, pagination, and source hash), gives usage examples, and clarifies the data source. It does not explain pagination parameters in detail, but the schema covers that. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

All four parameters (limit, query, offset, response_format) have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. It does imply the query parameter can be used to resolve a series before a history/spread call, but that is not a direct parameter-level clarification.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('active business-day series in LiveDataLink's self-hosted official Federal Reserve Board H.15 snapshot'), and enumerates the exact return fields (canonical series names, descriptions, instruments, maturities, coverage, pagination, and source hash). It also provides concrete example queries and explicitly distinguishes itself from a FRED proxy, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like fed_board_h15_rate_history or fed_board_h15_yield_curve.

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 gives explicit usage cases: 'find the Fed funds series', 'what Treasury maturities are available?', and 'resolve a series before a history/spread call.' It also clarifies that it is direct Board data, not a FRED proxy. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to avoid this tool in favor of them, though the reference to resolving before a history/spread call implicitly points to related tools.

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