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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that upcoming_dates=true switches the response from release metadata to the upcoming release calendar, which is meaningful for agent expectations.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and examples, and then the mode switch. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 catalog tool with zero required parameters and full schema documentation, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, gives examples, and explains the alternate mode. It could explicitly route to fred_observations or fred_series_info for actual data values, but that is not essential 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%, so all three parameters (limit, release_id, upcoming_dates) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of upcoming_dates=true aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic detail beyond it, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource combination — 'Browse FRED economic releases' — and reinforces it with concrete examples (Employment Situation, CPI, GDP). It also clearly distinguishes the two modes of operation (release metadata vs. upcoming calendar), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that focus on series, observations, or search.

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 provides a clear use case ('Useful for knowing when fresh data is expected') and explains when the upcoming_dates parameter changes behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like fred_observations or fred_series_info or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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