discover_series

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the tool may perform a live network call to /serieList versus returning static catalog data, which is real behavioral information. It omits any note on latency, failure modes, or that both parameters default (so a bare call is valid), which matters for a tool with a remote branch.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the conditional branch immediately after; no filler. Slightly compressed to the point that the omitted source parameter would have fit without harming brevity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are optional with defaults. Still, the undocumented source parameter and the absence of any guidance on choosing this over fetch_series leave an agent with a gap before it can call confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the datagroup parameter's meaning and gives a concrete example format (bie_dkdovizgn), which is valuable beyond the bare string type. However, the second parameter, source (default 'evds3'), is never mentioned anywhere, leaving half the parameter surface undocumented.

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?

States a specific action (series discovery) with two clearly distinguished output modes: live /serieList when a data group code is supplied, catalog seed series otherwise. It never positions itself against siblings such as fetch_series or list_sources, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 gives a genuine conditional: pass a datagroup code to hit the live endpoint, omit it to get seed series from the catalog. That implies when to call it, but there are no exclusions and no comparison to the retrieval-oriented siblings (fetch_series, list_sources), so the agent is left to guess whether to discover or fetch.

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