Get Series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain pagination defaults, result ordering, whether inactive series are returned by default, or any rate/volume characteristics of an 'all' retrieval.

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 words are technically terse but wildly under-specified for a tool whose single parameter is a nested object with roughly twenty sub-fields including duplicate params.* aliases. This is not conciseness but omission; no sentence earns its place because the one present sentence carries no operational information.

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?

For a nested-object listing tool with duplicate/aliased parameter paths and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify filtering versus full retrieval and the expected return shape. Annotations cover the read-only profile, but the description leaves the caller without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 reported at 100% and the query object's fields carry descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning, and it arguably misleads by calling this 'all series' when the schema supports slug, active, recurrence and category filters.

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 verb and resource ("Retrieve all series"), which is enough to know it reads series data, but it gives no scope detail and does nothing to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_series_by_id or get_tags. An agent cannot tell from this text whether pagination, filtering, or the active-flag semantics apply.

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 guidance at all: no mention of when to pick this over get_series_by_id, no note that the 'all' framing is misleading because the schema exposes slug, active, and recurrence filters, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.

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