economic_indicator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the data source (FRED) and scope (800,000+ series), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or potential errors. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one for purpose and scope, and another for parameters. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids redundancy. However, the parameter explanation could be slightly more integrated into the main text for better flow.

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 complexity (data retrieval with many series), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, data source, and parameter usage, though it could benefit from more behavioral details. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'series_id' is a FRED series ID with examples (e.g., GDP, CPIAUCSL) and that 'indicator' is an alias for 'series_id', clarifying they are interchangeable. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints or provide a full list of valid IDs.

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 retrieves 'US macroeconomic data from the Federal Reserve FRED database' and lists specific examples (GDP, CPI, unemployment, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on economic indicators rather than company data, crypto, SEC filings, or stock quotes. However, it doesn't specify the exact verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'fetch'), keeping it from a perfect 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?

The description implies usage by mentioning the FRED database and examples, suggesting it's for economic data queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no comparison to sibling tools) or any prerequisites. The context is clear but not detailed enough for full guidance.

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