bls.series

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions the 10-year limit but does not discuss error handling, rate limits, or data frequency (e.g., monthly vs. annual). The behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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 very concise (two sentences) and well-structured: it states the purpose, gives parameter usage, and provides common examples. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 params, no output schema), the description covers input constraints well but does not describe the output format (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves the agent somewhat uncertain about what the response will look like.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining seriesIds as comma-separated (1-10), and startYear/endYear as optional with a 10-year max. It adds meaning beyond the schema's type/range constraints, providing usage context.

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 retrieves US Bureau of Labor Statistics time-series data, specifies that seriesIds are comma-separated BLS IDs (1-10 per call), and provides examples like LNS14000000. It distinguishes itself from any sibling tools by focusing on a specific data source.

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 gives explicit constraints: up to 10 series IDs, optional startYear and endYear with a maximum 10-year range. While it does not compare to alternative tools, there are no similar BLS tools, so this guidance is adequate.

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