macro

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does real work: it specifies the return shape (one row per observation date), the unit semantics (series' own units, index points/percent/millions), and an important tier constraint (12-month history cap with older dates clipped). It stops short of disclosing error behavior for invalid series IDs or any auth requirements.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct payload: what it returns, in what units, and under what tier limit. 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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully covers the return shape in its place. But with zero annotations and two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description, plus no pointer to how series IDs are obtained, an agent still has gaps before it can call this reliably.

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% for 3 parameters. The description meaningfully clarifies 'series' by giving example values, but 'start' and 'end' are untyped-string params with no stated format (ISO date? YYYY-MM-DD?), no relationship to the 12-month clipping rule, and no default behavior. Partial compensation, not full.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('time series for a macroeconomic indicator') and grounds it with concrete series IDs (CPIAUCSL, UNRATE). An agent immediately knows it fetches a numeric history. However it never distinguishes itself from the sibling macro_search, which is presumably how you find those series IDs, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the macro_search alternative for discovering series identifiers. The only implicit context is that you supply a series ID, which the example list partly conveys. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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