get_series

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'fred/series' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what kind of response to expect. This leaves the agent completely uninformed about the tool's behavior.

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 (two words), this description represents under-specification rather than effective brevity. It fails to communicate essential information about the tool's purpose and usage, making it inefficient for the agent's understanding despite its short length.

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 an output schema (whose existence doesn't compensate for the complete lack of functional description), 'fred/series' is completely inadequate. The description provides no context about what the tool does, when to use it, or how it behaves, leaving the agent unable to make informed decisions about tool selection and invocation.

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 (series_id, realtime_start, realtime_end), the description 'fred/series' adds zero semantic information about what these parameters mean, how they should be formatted, or how they affect the operation. The agent would have no understanding of what constitutes valid input for 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 'fred/series' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what action it performs. It doesn't indicate whether this retrieves, creates, modifies, or analyzes series data, nor does it distinguish this tool from its many sibling tools (like get_series_observations, get_series_tags, etc.). This provides no meaningful guidance about the tool's function.

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 offers no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools dealing with series data (get_series_observations, get_series_tags, search_series, etc.), there's no indication of what specific aspect of series data this tool addresses or when it should be selected over related tools.

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