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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value on top: the FRED_API_KEY environment requirement with where to obtain it, the upstream data source, and the specific return fields. It does not mention pagination/limit behaviour or result caps, which leaves a small gap.

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 one-sentence purpose, then uses labelled bullets for usage, examples, and prerequisites, which is scannable and well ordered. The six-item series ID list is helpful but the longest discretionary element; overall length is justified for a discovery tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return structure, yet it still summarizes the fields. Auth requirements, sibling routing, and use cases are all covered. The one omission is that the schema carries unrelated wholesaler/CRM-style parameters (wholesaler_ids, exclude_fillers, source_resource_id) that the description neither explains nor disclaims, which could confuse an agent.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0% at the top level, and the description itself never explains query syntax, limit, or order_by semantics. The 'Common series IDs' block only implicitly teaches the agent what query strings look like (e.g. 'DGS10', 'CPIAUCSL'), and several schema parameters (wholesaler_ids, exclude_fillers, additional_display_fields) are never addressed at all.

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 and resource ('Search the ... FRED database for economic data series by keyword') and enumerates what comes back (series ID, title, frequency, units, seasonal adjustment, date range). It is cleanly separable from the sibling GetFredSeriesData, which the description explicitly names as the follow-up step.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use this tool when:' list covering the three real triggers (finding a series ID, discovering available macro data, sourcing rates/inflation/GDP context). It also routes onward: 'use GetFredSeriesData after finding one', so the handoff between the search and fetch tools is unambiguous.

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