Get FRED series metadata

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description is not burdened with explaining safety. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the example, such as realtime parameter semantics or error behavior. It is adequate given the annotations but not rich.

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, front-loads the primary purpose, and includes a concrete example. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

This is a simple metadata lookup tool with an output schema and safe annotations. The description sufficiently covers the core use case, and the missing realtime parameter details are minor given that the output schema is present and the tool is low-complexity.

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 for the bare input schema. The description only provides an example for series_id and leaves realtime_start and realtime_end completely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Get metadata') and a clear resource ('FRED economic data series by series ID'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_series_observations. The example invocation reinforces the tool's exact 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need metadata rather than observations or other specific series details), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state any exclusions. The usage guidance is implied through the word 'metadata' rather than explicitly spelled out.

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