get_regional_data

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: all six arguments are required, the output is nested under a top-level meta object (mirroring FRED's envelope), and the API returns the full unpaged cross-section, which can exceed 250,000 characters for county. This is exactly the kind of detail that helps an agent anticipate response size and structure.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, required arguments, output structure, and a critical size warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains focused without redundant phrasing.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description fills the remaining contextual gaps: the meta envelope layout, the unpaged nature of the response, and the practical size implications. It gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly (e.g., units being a free-text label, date format, region_type enum). The description restates that all arguments are required but does not add new parameter-level insights beyond what is in the schema, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb ('fetch') and precise resource ('region cross-section for a series group'), enumerating the region types (state, county, MSA, country, BEA). This clearly distinguishes it from the many series/data siblings in the tool list, such as get_series_data or get_observations.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when a regional breakdown of a series group is needed for a specific date. The size caveat ('prefer state, bea, or country unless you need that granularity') provides practical guidance on region_type selection, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it compared to siblings.

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