fred_search_series

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

The description extensively discloses behaviors: key requirement, error types (400, 5xx, 200 non-JSON), pagination details, null handling, honest empty results, and key security (only in query param, not logged). This goes far beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint 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 fairly long but front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though some repetition (e.g., 'honest' multiple times). Structure is logical and informative.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully documents return structure ({ series: [...] } + _meta), error conditions, pagination, and next steps. It is comprehensive for a search tool with complex API behavior.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context: defaults (25, 1000 max, offset 0), pagination with nextOffset, and example query values. This enhances the parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 it discovers FRED economic series by free-text search, listing examples like GDP, CPI, etc., and explicitly references the companion tool fred_series_observations, distinguishing it from siblings.

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 explicitly requires a FRED_API_KEY, explains the consequence of missing it, and guides users to api_key_status for key requirements. It provides input examples and output usage (feed id to fred_series_observations). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or usage scenarios.

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