get_map_regional_data

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 'geofred/regional/data' reveals nothing about the tool's behavior - whether it's a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has rate limits, what format the output takes, or any side effects. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this complete lack of behavioral information is severely inadequate.

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 - just three words separated by slashes. While this is technically efficient, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The structure doesn't front-load key information or provide any meaningful organization. It's more of a placeholder than a helpful description, though it doesn't waste words on irrelevant content.

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 (9 parameters, 3 required, no schema descriptions) and the presence of an output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. While the output schema might help with understanding return values, the description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters work, or any behavioral characteristics. For a data retrieval tool in a crowded namespace of 35 sibling tools, this description provides almost 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 9 parameters (3 required), the description provides zero information about parameter meanings or usage. The schema only provides titles like 'Series Group', 'Region Type', and 'Date' without explaining what these mean, what values are acceptable, or how they interact. The description 'geofred/regional/data' adds no semantic context about any parameters, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to properly invoke this tool.

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 'geofred/regional/data' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieve', 'fetch', 'query') or what resource it operates on beyond what's already implied by the name. While it hints at geographic/regional data from FRED, it lacks a clear verb and doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings in the FRED/GeoFRED ecosystem.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 35 sibling tools on the server (including other GeoFRED tools like 'get_map_series_data' and 'get_map_series_group'), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be selected over similar tools. The description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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