fred_qd

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the valid date range 'from "2015-01" to now' and the return type (pandas.DataFrame), which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like pagination, data limitations, or error handling, and the 'Comments or suggestions are welcome' line is irrelevant.

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 padded with irrelevant content such as 'Comments or suggestions are welcome' and a verbose citation. The key parameter and return information appears only at the end, making the structure less front-loaded. Several sentences earn no functional value for an AI agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It identifies the dataset, the date parameter's format and range, and the return type. However, it leaves ambiguity about what the returned DataFrame contains (columns, multiple series) and whether 'date' refers to a single quarter or a range. Given the lack of output schema, more detail on the return shape would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema only defines 'date' as a string with a default and no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by providing a concrete example ('2020-03') and the valid range ('from "2015-01" to now'), which clarifies the expected format and bounds. This is valuable, though it does not fully explain the semantic role of the date (e.g., specific quarter vs. start of a range).

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 identifies FRED-QD as a quarterly frequency companion to FRED-MD, which distinguishes it from fred_md and other macro tools. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'fetch' or 'retrieve'—the tool's purpose is implied rather than stated. The resource and scope are present, but the verb is missing, making it less clear than a strong action-oriented description.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'quarterly frequency companion to FRED-MD' hints at a use case (quarterly vs. monthly data), but no direct instruction or exclusion is provided. No prerequisites, alternatives, or context for choosing this tool over siblings like fred_md are mentioned.

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