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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that this is a curated wrapper restricted to a fixed set of friendly names, which is useful and consistent. It does not describe the exact response format, but with annotations covering the safety profile, the additional behavioral disclosure is acceptable.

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 opening sentence immediately states the purpose, the second gives the rationale, and the remainder is an exhaustive list of valid values. The list is long but necessary given the closed set, and there is no filler prose.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description never explicitly states what is returned (presumably FRED observations) or how to interpret the result. The parameter schema covers start/end/limit, but the return shape is a notable omission. The tool is simple enough that an agent can likely call it, but the description is not fully complete.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions and the indicator enum lists exactly the same values as the description, so the description's list is redundant. The main added semantic is the friendly-name-to-series-ID mapping, but the schema's indicator description already calls it a 'friendly indicator name.' Thus the description does not move meaningfully beyond the structured schema.

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 identifies a specific convenience wrapper over frequently used FRED indicators, selected by friendly names, and explains that it removes the need to memorize FRED series IDs. It is clear about the resource and access pattern, but it does not explicitly frame itself against siblings like fred_observations, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 communicates a use case: users who want one of the 26 listed common indicators without knowing the series ID. It does not explicitly state when to prefer fred_observations, fred_search, or other siblings, nor provide any exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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