get_series

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the weight. It discloses that the tool returns a compact preview with caveats, provenance, and artifact descriptor; explains caching via fiscus-cache://artifact/cache_key; details vintage failure modes; and notes that BOGZ1 identifiers are not auto-corrected. This is highly transparent.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence. It is somewhat verbose (a single dense paragraph) but each sentence adds distinct value. A more structured format (e.g., bullets) could improve scannability, but the content is efficiently packed.

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 complexity (5 params, output schema exists), the description covers core workflow (use find_series IDs), edge cases (vintage failures, uncataloged series), and behavioral specifics (refresh, BOGZ1 handling). The output schema handles return values, so the description is complete for selection and correct invocation.

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 adds meaning to vintage_as_of (ISO date, FRED_API_KEY required), refresh (only for new source retrieval), and start/end (observation-date bounds). The dataset_id parameter is implied but not explicitly described; a brief clarification would push to 5.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool fetches a cataloged series from specific families (FRED, BEA, BLS, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like find_series which is for finding IDs. The verb 'Fetch' and the list of data families give a precise purpose.

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?

Explicitly advises to prefer IDs from find_series, explains when to use uncataloged series (fred.SERIES_ID / bls.SERIES_ID), and gives detailed guidance on the vintage parameter and refresh flag. It also alerts about BOGZ1 identifier behavior, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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