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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: default to today's operations when no dates are given, empty on weekends/holidays, date-range search when dates are provided, and the breakdown by security type. These details go beyond the annotations and clarify what the agent should expect.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then content, date behavior, use cases, and differentiation. Every sentence contributes value, and the most important constraint (default to today) is front-loaded. Despite being a bit long, it is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the 5 parameters, no output schema, and the need to differentiate from similar FRED tools, the description covers all essential aspects: what is returned, how dates affect the query, use cases, and a clear contrast with an alternative. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and interpret the results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra nuance about the default behavior (no dates → today's operations) and reinforces the operation_type semantics, which the schema already covers. This pushes it above baseline but it does not add significant new parameter information beyond what the schema provides.

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 returns NY Fed Desk repo and reverse repo operation results, specifically actual auctions rather than daily aggregates. It enumerates the exact data points (submitted/accepted USD, counterparty counts, award rates, security breakdown) and explicitly contrasts with fred_get_series, making the resource and scope unambiguous.

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 concrete use cases ('today's ON RRP usage', 'reverse repo take-up this week vs last', 'who's using the SRF') and explicitly distinguishes from fred_get_series by pointing out that the alternative only gives daily totals without per-operation detail. This gives an agent clear guidance on when to choose this tool.

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