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

Annotations establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the two-stage matching strategy, recognition of standard names, empty-query behavior, and the specific result fields (seasonal adjustment, latest observation date, UTC sync time). This goes far beyond the annotations.

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, each earning its place. The first scopes the resource, the second explains the search logic, and the third describes output contents. No redundancy or 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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope, behavior, result contents, and edge cases (empty query). It is fully self-contained and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to invoke or interpret the tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the query parameter with word-matching semantics (every word required first, then any-word fallback) and clarifies that empty queries list all series. maxResults is fully covered by the schema, so the net addition is meaningful but not maximal.

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 clearly states the tool searches a curated set of ~40 US macro FRED series, distinguishing it from the full FRED catalog. The verb 'search' plus the specific resource scope (rates, inflation, employment, GDP, etc.) makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools like GetEconomicIndicator.

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 clear usage context: it searches only the tracked series, not the full FRED catalog, and explains the search algorithm with strict-then-broad matching. It also notes that an empty query lists all series. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide direct 'use this instead of X' guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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