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 that results include the FRED observation date for each point, which is a useful behavioral detail about the data source. However, it does not disclose how the limit parameter affects results, whether pagination exists, or the exact return shape. Since annotations carry the safety burden, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler text. It is appropriate for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains what it retrieves (latest US Treasury yields by maturity) and adds a datum (FRED observation date). However, it omits any explanation of the limit parameter's effect, and since there is no output schema, it does not clarify the response structure (e.g., whether it returns an array of points). The gaps are minor for such a simple tool, but they leave room for agent confusion.

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 0% and the description makes no mention of the only parameter 'limit'. The schema provides type, default, min, and max, but not meaning or purpose. An agent has no guidance on how limit influences the output (e.g., number of maturities returned). The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 a specific action (get) on a defined resource (the US Treasury yield curve), and specifies the data quality (latest, by maturity, with FRED observation dates). It distinguishes itself from siblings like macro.series by focusing on the yield curve and mentioning the FRED data source. No ambiguity or tautology.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as macro.series or macro.calendar. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent away from this tool. The context of 'latest US Treasury yields' is implied but not explicitly contrasted with other macro tools.

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