Search for series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context: it returns series IDs with title, units, native frequency, and a copyrighted flag. It also warns that some series are copyrighted by third parties with terms beyond personal use. This is valuable transparency beyond the 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?

The description is appropriately sized: 4 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: overall function, query example, return fields with copyright warning, and workflow hint. No wasted words.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains the tool's role in the workflow, what is returned, and a special note about copyright. The output schema likely details the return structure, so the description doesn't need to repeat that.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains the query parameter clearly with examples ('plain words (e.g. 'unemployment rate', 'median home price').' The limit parameter is not mentioned but has a default in the schema. While the description adds meaning for the critical parameter, it could briefly note the optional limit parameter.

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 verb (Find) and resource (FRED series) with 'by free-text search, best matches first.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_series and get_observations by positioning this as the initial search step: 'Resolve a series ID here first; the data tools key off it.'

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 implies when to use: before data tools (get_observations, etc.) as it says 'Resolve a series ID here first.' It provides context about the return values and the copyrighted flag. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like compare_series or get_revision_history.

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