Get categories for a FRED series

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 no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of realtime parameter effects, pagination, or what the response contains. It does not contradict annotations, but also adds little transparency value.

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-loaded with the core purpose. The example is concise and directly illustrative. No unnecessary words or repetition of the title.

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 are covered. However, the description lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics for realtime_start/realtime_end. For a simple read-only tool it is minimally adequate, but gaps in alternatives and parameter details make it incomplete.

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%, and the description only illustrates series_id in the example. The parameters realtime_start and realtime_end are completely unexplained in both the schema and the description. With three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should compensate more substantially.

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 purpose: 'Get the categories that contain a FRED series.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the example with series_id='CPIAUCSL' adds concrete clarity. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_category_series, the direction of the relationship (categories containing a series) is clear enough to distinguish from siblings.

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: when you have a series_id and want its categories. The example provides a concrete calling pattern. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., get_category_series for the inverse relationship), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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