search_series

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description 'fred/series/search' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no results are found. For a search tool with 12 parameters, this complete lack of behavioral context is 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 maximally concise - a single path-like string 'fred/series/search'. While this represents severe under-specification, it's technically concise with zero wasted words. The structure is simple and front-loaded, though it's front-loaded with essentially no 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 (12 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the existence of an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. While the output schema might describe return values, the description doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, how parameters work, or any behavioral characteristics. For a search tool in a rich ecosystem with many sibling alternatives, this minimal description fails to provide necessary context.

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 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description 'fred/series/search' adds zero semantic information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'query' searches against, what 'search_type' options exist, what 'filter_variable' and 'filter_value' do, what 'tag_names' represents, or any other parameter meaning. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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/search' is essentially a tautology - it restates the tool name 'search_series' with path notation. It doesn't specify what 'series' refers to (economic data series from FRED), what kind of search it performs, or what resources it operates on. While the name implies searching series, the description adds no meaningful clarification beyond the name itself.

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 multiple sibling tools like 'search_series_by_tags', 'get_series', and various category/release/tag tools, there's no indication of when this general search tool is appropriate versus more specific alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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