Get vintage dates

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds that the full list is capped to most recent dates with total_vintages being true count, disclosing a key behavioral limitation. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences with line breaks for readability. Not verbose, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameter). Every sentence contributes value.

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 output schema exists (not shown), description covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral limitations. For a 1-parameter tool, this is sufficient. Could mention pagination or max dates, but capped list is disclosed.

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?

Only parameter series_id is explained as a FRED series ID with context on its use (revision frequency and bounding). Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds meaning beyond the schema by linking to tool purpose and sibling tools.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves vintage dates (release/revision history) for a FRED series. It distinguishes from siblings like get_series_as_of by explaining bounding behavior, and addresses revision frequency. The verb 'get' and resource 'vintage_dates' are specific.

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?

Description explains that it answers 'how often is this revised?' and bounds vintage tools, giving explicit context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like get_revision_history, though the sibling list provides context.

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