get_release_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate 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 side effects. The description fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the minimal name restatement.

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 at just 'fred/release/tables' - a single phrase with no sentence structure. While this is technically brief, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks the front-loaded clarity that would help an agent quickly understand the tool's purpose.

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 tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description is inadequate. While the output schema might document return values, the description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, or how parameters work. For a tool with multiple parameters in a complex API environment, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the tool's behavior. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the structured 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/release/tables' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional information. It vaguely suggests something about FRED releases and tables but doesn't specify what action the tool performs (retrieve, list, generate, etc.) or what resource it operates on. While it distinguishes from some siblings by mentioning 'tables,' it doesn't clearly differentiate from tools like get_release_series or get_release_observations_v2.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools like get_release_series or get_release_observations_v2 that might serve similar purposes. The agent receives no help in selecting this tool over others in the FRED API suite.

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