List series in a release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only the example, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior or return structure. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but not rich context.

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 long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a concrete example. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 complexity of 11 parameters and a single required parameter, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the tool's filtering, sorting, or pagination capabilities, nor does it mention what the output represents beyond the general 'series in a release.' The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still leaves many usage scenarios unaddressed.

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 only illustrates 'release_id' and 'limit' via the example, leaving the other 9 parameters (offset, order_by, tag_names, filter_variable, etc.) semantically unexplained. The parameter names are self-explanatory to an extent, but the description does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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's function: 'List FRED series published in a release.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_release_dates' (lists dates) and 'get_release' (gets release details). The example further clarifies the intended call.

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 providing an example (get_release_series(release_id=10, limit=20)), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools.

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