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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and mostly delivers: it discloses revision handling ('revisions never pose as print-day numbers'), the surprise methodology (market-implied when a matching prediction market exists, else trend-model), daily cadence, and even the $0.02 x402 price. It stops short of auth/payment mechanics and rate-limit or error behavior.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the first clause states the resource and the payload set, then detail follows. The first phrase ('latest print, revisions, surprise') is partially restated in the next sentence, a small redundancy, but the HTTP/price/docs footer is compact and useful.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (first-release, latest, revised flag, surprise, next release, 12-point series) in enough detail to know what comes back. Auth/payment flow and rate-limit context are the remaining gaps.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is 100% and additionalProperties=false, so no hidden inputs to explain.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: the latest 2-year Treasury yield print from the Fed via FRED/ALFRED, with a precise payload list (first-release vs latest, revised flag, surprise, next release, 12-obs mini-series). It differentiates from the generic econ_series sibling by stating it is the treasury-2y-bound shape, and from econ_series_treasury-10y by naming the 2-year tenor.

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 by the resource (fetch the 2y Treasury series) but the description never says when to prefer it over econ_series or econ_series_treasury-10y, nor any exclusions. The 'same shape as /v1/econ/:series bound to treasury-2y' line hints at the relationship without resolving which to call.

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