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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the data source (FRED) and the specific indicators, which is useful, but does not mention potential errors, authentication needs, rate limits, or the exact return format. For a read-only data retrieval tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is fairly complete. It enumerates the indicators and the data source. The only gap is the lack of explanation about the return structure, but given the absence of an output schema, the description does an adequate job.

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 100% because the input schema fully describes the 'series' parameter with valid values and default. The description lists the indicators and mentions FRED, adding slight context, but does not significantly extend beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('key US housing market indicators from FRED') and lists five distinct indicators, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_home_prices and get_rental_data which likely focus on narrower subsets.

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 clearly states the tool is for obtaining housing market indicators from FRED, providing context for when to use it. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, the sibling context signals and the broad scope imply its usage over more specific tools.

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