get_category_series

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description 'fred/category/series' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), error conditions, or what the response contains. For an 11-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate behavioral transparency.

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 maximally concise at three words/slashes. While severely under-specified, it contains no wasted words and is front-loaded with the only information it provides. Every element (fred, category, series) earns its place by at least hinting at the domain and resource scope.

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 complexity (11 parameters, 1 required), zero annotation coverage, and the existence of an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. While the output schema may describe return values, the description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters interact, or any behavioral characteristics. For a data retrieval tool with extensive filtering and pagination options, this minimal description leaves the agent guessing about fundamental purpose and usage.

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 11 parameters (10 optional with defaults, 1 required), the description 'fred/category/series' adds zero semantic information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what category_id represents, what filtering options exist, what order_by values are valid, what tag_names format should be used, or what realtime_start/end mean. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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/series' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with path notation. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (list? retrieve? filter?) or what resource it operates on beyond what's implied by the name. While it hints this is related to FRED economic data, it doesn't clearly state the verb or distinguish this from sibling tools like get_category, get_category_children, or get_tag_series.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 35 sibling tools on the server including get_category, get_category_children, get_category_related, get_tag_series, and search_series, there's no indication of when this specific series-retrieval-by-category tool is appropriate versus other series-related tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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