get_tag_series

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's rate-limited, what format the output takes, or any error conditions. For an 8-parameter tool with complex filtering options, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 - a single string 'fred/tags/series' with no wasted words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure structural perspective it's front-loaded and contains zero unnecessary content. Every character earns its place, though that place is inadequate for a tool description.

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's complexity (8 parameters, filtering capabilities, sorting options) and the complete absence of annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. While an output schema exists (which might explain return values), the description doesn't provide the minimal context needed to understand what the tool does, when to use it, or how its parameters work. For a data retrieval tool with multiple filtering options, this is completely 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 8 parameters (only one required), the description provides absolutely no information about parameter meanings or usage. It doesn't explain what 'tag_names' should contain, what 'realtime_start/end' represent, how 'order_by' and 'sort_order' work, or what the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters control. 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/tags/series' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'get_tag_series' in a different format. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieve', 'list', 'search') or what resource it operates on beyond the vague 'tags/series' reference. While it hints at FRED data, it lacks a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_tags' or 'get_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 numerous sibling tools like 'get_tags', 'get_series', 'search_series_by_tags', and 'get_related_tags', there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be selected. No context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions is mentioned.

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