get_release

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool returns name, press-release flag, and link, which is useful but not critical. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits) are disclosed, but the tool is simple and the annotations cover most needs.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and key details. It is efficient with no redundant words, though it could be slightly tightened by separating the example. Overall, it earns its place.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description is complete: it specifies the input (release_id), the output fields (name, flag, link), and an example. Sibling guidance is implicit via the surrounding tool set. Annotations cover behavioral context. No critical gaps.

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 a single parameter with 100% description coverage, including the same example (53). The tool description repeats that example but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, a 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 action 'Fetch', the resource 'FRED data release', and the returned fields (name, press-release flag, link). The example with id 53 for Gross Domestic Product provides concrete context, and the tool is well-distinguished from siblings like get_releases (list) and get_release_series.

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 implies usage when a specific release_id is known, and provides an example. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., get_releases for listing), and no when-not or alternative recommendations are included. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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