Get macro indicator (FRED)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by describing the response shape (`data` for recent observations, a `count`) and providing concrete examples of series IDs. It does not mention limitations like date ranges, but for a simple read-only macro lookup, this is sufficient additional context.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second lists common IDs with meanings, and the third gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description sufficiently covers the return structure (`data`, `count`), gives representative series IDs, and points to the dashboard for broader context. The lack of an output schema is compensated by hints about the response shape. Minor omissions like units or data frequency are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 already has 100% coverage with a description and examples for seriesId. The description adds further semantic value by explaining what each common ID represents (e.g., DGS10 → 10y Treasury yield, UNRATE → unemployment), which helps the agent select the correct series without external knowledge.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves latest values for a single FRED macro series, specifies the response structure under `data` with a `count`, and lists common series IDs with meanings. It also distinguishes itself from the dashboard sibling by explicitly saying 'Use for a single specific indicator; for the full picture use stoquant_get_macro_dashboard'.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use for a single specific indicator; for the full picture use stoquant_get_macro_dashboard.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over the alternative, and implies it is not intended for broad multi-indicator views.

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