get_category_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'fred/category/related' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has rate limits, what format the output takes, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is completely inadequate for a tool with 3 parameters.

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?

While technically concise (a single phrase), this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to communicate any meaningful information, making it inefficient rather than efficient. There's no structure or front-loading of important information.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. While there is an output schema, the description doesn't even establish the basic purpose or behavior of the tool. Given the complexity of the FRED API ecosystem with many similar-sounding tools, this description provides no useful context for an AI agent.

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 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (category_id, realtime_start, realtime_end), the description provides zero information about what these parameters mean, how they should be used, or what values are appropriate. The description doesn't even hint at what 'related' means in this context, leaving all parameters completely undocumented beyond their basic types in the schema.

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 'fred/category/related' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name in a different format. It provides no information about what the tool actually does, what action it performs, or what resource it operates on. It fails to distinguish this tool from its many siblings in the FRED API family.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 30+ sibling tools in the FRED ecosystem, there's no indication of what specific problem this tool solves, what context it's appropriate for, or when other tools like get_category_children, get_category_tags, or get_category_series would be more appropriate.

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