Get series metadata + verification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context by explaining that verification status comes from golden-value and freshness checks against the live source. This reveals live comparison behavior beyond static metadata lookup and does not contradict the annotations.

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 well-structured sentence that leads with the core function ('Full metadata for one series') before enumerating contents. Every element earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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, the description thoroughly enumerates return contents (fields, verification status, recent checks, citation), giving an agent a solid understanding of the result shape. It could mention error handling or unknown-series behavior, but coverage is strong for a read-only metadata tool with two documented parameters.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema with concrete examples ('fred', 'UNRATE', 'v41690973'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond that, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 specifies a unique resource ('metadata for one series') and a clear action, then enumerates the payload components (indicator, unit, frequency, geography, coverage, verification status, check records, citation). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_observations and get_series_stats without requiring schema inspection.

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 implies the tool is for metadata and verification retrieval, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_observations for data points, so it stops short of a 5.

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