get_source_releases

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 provides 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 other behavioral characteristics. The description is completely silent on all behavioral aspects.

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 'fred/source/releases' - which could be considered front-loaded if it contained meaningful information. However, this is a case of severe under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single fragment uses minimal characters but fails to convey necessary 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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, 1 required), zero schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters work, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool with this many parameters and sibling tools, the description is inadequate.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description 'fred/source/releases' provides zero information about any parameters - not what source_id refers to, not what realtime_start/end mean, not what limit/offset do, not what order_by/sort_order options are available. 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/source/releases' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It doesn't specify the verb (retrieve? list? fetch?) or clarify what 'releases' means in this context. While it mentions the resource ('source releases'), it provides no functional information about the tool's purpose.

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 the many sibling tools (like get_releases, get_release, get_source, etc.). There's no indication of what distinguishes this tool from other release-related or source-related tools in the FRED API family.

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