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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the wrapper framing and the indicator vocabulary, without disclosing return shape, pagination, or data-vintage behavior that a FRED consumer would care about.

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 first sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the second is a 26-item enumeration that duplicates the schema's indicator enum verbatim, consuming most of the description's length without adding information. That bulk fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is adequate but stops short of complete: it does not say what a response looks like (dates plus values), how the default limit behaves, or which sibling to use for arbitrary series. No output schema exists, so return-value framing was the description's to supply and is absent.

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% – start, end, and limit are each documented in the schema, and the indicator enum carries its own description. The description's re-listing of the 26 enum values adds no semantics beyond what the schema already declares, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (FRED indicators) and access mode (quick-access wrapper by friendly name), and implicitly distinguishes itself from series-ID-based siblings by noting it 'avoids needing to memorize FRED series IDs.' It never names a sibling like fred_observations or fred_search explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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: reach for this when you want a common macro indicator by friendly name rather than a raw series ID. There is no explicit 'use X instead when Y' guidance, and nothing tells the agent when fred_observations, fred_search, or fred_compare would be the better choice.

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