get_observations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about ALFRED point-in-time/vintage behavior and the constraint that realtime_start/realtime_end be used together, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core purpose, then efficiently summarize optional capabilities and the special ALFRED case. Every sentence earns its place with no filler 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 an 11-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the primary function, optional transforms, and the critical ALFRED usage nuance. Parameter-level constraints live in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them; the only notable gap is lack of sibling-tool differentiation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter (units enums, aggregation method, realtime constraints, etc.). The description restates some high-level capabilities and adds a compound hint for realtime_start/realtime_end, but it does not materially add meaning beyond the rich schema, so baseline 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('a FRED series' observations') with output described as date/value pairs plus ALFRED real-time periods. It is unambiguous but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_series_data or get_series_vintagedates, so it misses the top score.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool (fetching observations with optional date range, units, aggregation, sort, limit) and gives explicit ALFRED guidance: realtime_start/realtime_end must be set together, and same date gives a point-in-time snapshot. It does not name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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