get_series

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: weekly cadence, latest published versions only, reliability flag per week, and inclusive start/end bounds. However, it omits other behavior such as default max_weeks, region requirements, and error conditions.

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 very short and front-loads what the tool returns before adding the date-bound detail. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no redundant 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?

With a rich input schema and an output schema, the description does not need to explain every parameter or return field. Still, for a tool with revisions/as-of siblings and complex region options, it is somewhat thin on usage context and behavioral edge cases.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters in detail. The description adds a small amount of semantics by saying start and end bound weeks inclusively, but otherwise defers to 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 the resource: weekly values for one measure, with latest published versions and a reliability flag. It implies a contrast with revision/as-of tools but does not explicitly name them, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

It does not state when to use this tool versus get_revisions, get_as_of, or check_reliability. The phrase 'latest published versions' hints at the use case, but there is no explicit guidance or exclusions.

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