Search Economic Indicators

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

Annotations supply only readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it explains the strict-AND-first-then-broaden fallback (which explains why loose results can appear), alias recognition for names like 'yield curve' and 'core CPI', and empty-query behavior. It also names the fields returned (seasonal adjustment, latest observation date, UTC sync time), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining sentences each add distinct operational detail (fallback logic, aliases, empty query, return fields). It is dense but not padded; slightly long single-block structure is the only weakness.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating result fields and by documenting search semantics and the empty-query case. What remains thin is the relationship to sibling retrieval tools (e.g., how to go from a search hit to fetching a series), leaving a small gap for a 2-param discovery tool.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including query examples and the maxResults default/max. The description only marginally exceeds this by noting punctuation-independent word matching and standard-name recognition; maxResults is not discussed in prose. Baseline 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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Search the curated set of ~40 US macro FRED series Equibles tracks') and explicitly bounds scope with 'not the full FRED catalog.' That contrast distinguishes it from siblings like GetEconomicIndicator (single series fetch) and GetLatestEconomicIndicators, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the scope statement ('curated set... not the full FRED catalog'), which hints this is a discovery tool. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as GetEconomicIndicator for retrieving a known series, so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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