series

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, pagination behavior (beyond the limit/offset parameters), or what the output looks like. For a tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that clearly states the core purpose. Every word earns its place - 'Get observations' establishes the action, 'for a specific FRED data series' specifies the resource, and 'with advanced options' hints at the parameter complexity without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'observations' are in the FRED context, doesn't mention authentication requirements, doesn't describe the return format, and provides no guidance on parameter interactions. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description itself lacks necessary context for effective tool selection and use.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'advanced options' which hints at the numerous parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, defaults, or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get observations for a specific FRED data series with advanced options'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('observations for a specific FRED data series'), and scope ('with advanced options'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search' tool, which likely searches for series rather than retrieving observations for a specific series.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'advanced options' but doesn't specify what makes it advanced or when simpler alternatives might exist. There's no mention of the sibling 'search' tool, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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