Describe Series

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains what the tool returns (metadata, including breaks/rebases and caveats) and frames it as a read-oriented decision aid. It does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, but 'full metadata' and the describe semantics strongly imply a non-mutating operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's output and followed by actionable usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and the clear use-case guidance, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly improved by indicating where series_id comes from or how it relates to sibling tools like find_series, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema has only series_id with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any details about the parameter's format or origin. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory and the singular required field is easy to interpret, so the lack of elaboration is only a minor gap.

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 that the tool returns full metadata for a series and enumerates the metadata content (coverage, unit, base years, breaks/rebases, caveats). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_series or compare_series that likely return data or comparisons, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 guidance on when to call the tool: before trusting a cross-time comparison or before deciding whether a transform is needed. It does not state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls just 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.