fred_browse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It doesn't explicitly state that the tool is read-only or idempotent, though browsing operations are inherently safe. The description could benefit from mentioning that it does not modify data, but the current text is adequate for standard browsing behavior.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists options efficiently. Every word earns its place; no extraneous information. Ideal for quick comprehension.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the main use cases and parameter dependencies. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., 'returns a list of nodes' or 'paginated results'). Adding a brief note about the output would make it fully complete for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the mapping of browse_type to different browsing modes and implying which parameters are relevant (e.g., category_id for category_series). This helps the agent understand parameter combinations beyond the individual descriptions.

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 verb 'Browse' and resource 'FRED's complete catalog'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (fred_get_series for data retrieval, fred_search for text search) by focusing on catalog navigation via categories, releases, and sources. The browse_type enum provides specific options, making purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for each browse_type option (e.g., 'use browse_type='categories' to explore the category tree'), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over fred_search or fred_get_series. While the usage is clear for browsing actions, exclusions could be added for completeness.

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