econ_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'searches' – implying a read operation – but does not specify any behavioral traits such as whether it returns a list, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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, succinct sentence with zero waste, which aligns with conciseness. However, it is under-specified rather than well-structured; the brevity sacrifices critical context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the lack of supporting detail makes it feel incomplete for a tool with a specific scope like FRED.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and no output schema, the description should still clarify what the search returns (e.g., dataset names, IDs, metadata) or any constraints. The current description only mentions the search source (FRED) without explaining the result format or how it differs from other econ tools. This leaves a notable gap in the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'query' parameter described as 'Search query'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as expected format, language, or example values. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action ('Search for economic datasets') and specifies the resource ('FRED'), which gives an agent a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like econ_dataset, econ_calendar, or econ_find, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific search tool is preferred over similar econ-related tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or distinctive use cases that would help an agent choose between econ_search and sibling tools like econ_dataset or econ_find. An agent is left to infer the appropriate usage context.

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