fred_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds only that it matches 'by keyword', with no detail on result format, pagination, or match semantics. It doesn't contradict the annotations; it just adds minimal context beyond them.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence、and the examples directly illustrate usage. Every word contributes value, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 two-parameter search tool with safety annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and param usage, but does not mention what the response contains (e.g., series IDs, titles, metadata) or how to chain into fred_series_data. The absence of an output schema means the description could reasonably be expected to cover return expectations more explicitly.

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% — both query and limit have clear descriptions. The description adds no new parameter information beyond the schema, though the examples do clarify acceptable query values. This aligns with the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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?

States a specific action 'Search' on a specific resource 'FRED series by keyword', followed by concrete examples ('GDP', 'unemployment', etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from data-retrieval tools like fred_series_data and other domain search tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It doesn't mention that fred_series_data should be used once a series is identified, nor does it contrast with other search tools. The examples imply keyword-based discovery but leave the routing decision entirely to the agent.

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