get_category_series

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about pagination metadata (total count, offset, limit) and supports ordering/sort/limit, which are not fully captured by the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the primary action and then lists key features. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity, the presence of annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior. It mentions pagination and ordering, which are key aspects, and does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a high-level summary of capabilities ('ordering, sort direction, result limit') but does not provide significant additional detail beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose: to list FRED series belonging to a category. It uses specific verbs ('List') and identifies the resource ('FRED series that belong to a category'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_category (category info) or get_category_children (subcategories).

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 clear context on when to use the tool (when you need series in a category) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer usage, but it lacks the explicit exclusions or alternative tool references seen in higher-scoring examples.

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