fred_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens with empty results. For a search tool, not mentioning result ordering or result set truncation is a gap.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a list of examples. Every word serves a purpose, and the most critical information (verb, resource, examples) is front-loaded. There is no redundant or verbose text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but omits what the output looks like (e.g., list of series with IDs and descriptions). An agent might need to know the return format to decide if this tool satisfies their need. However, for a search tool, the output structure is somewhat implied.

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% with both 'query' and 'limit' described. The description adds valuable examples for the 'query' parameter ('GDP', 'unemployment', 'CPI', 'mortgage rate'), which helps the agent understand the type of input expected. The 'limit' parameter's default value is already in the schema; no extra info is needed.

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: 'Search FRED series by keyword.' It includes specific examples like 'GDP', 'unemployment', 'CPI', 'mortgage rate' which help clarify the scope. The verb 'Search' and resource 'FRED series' are explicit, and the tool is distinct from siblings like fred_series_data (which retrieves data for a specific series) and fred_series_info (which gets metadata).

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 alternative FRED tools (e.g., fred_release_data, fred_series_data). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool might be preferred. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name and examples.

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