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

无注解，但描述主动披露了只读查询和按发布日历更新（未到发布日无新值）的行为。这超出了纯粹的功能描述，提供了实际行为约束。虽然未涉及错误处理或响应格式，但有输出schema可以弥补，整体透明性良好。

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?

描述紧凑，两句话涵盖了功能、使用场景、排除条件、行为约束。信息密度高，没有冗余，关键信息前置，结构清晰。

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?

有输出schema，描述覆盖了使用场景、行为（只读、日历更新）、参数示例，已足够让agent正确调用。未提及错误处理或分页，但鉴于工具简单且输出schema存在，完整度可接受。

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描述覆盖率100%，两个参数（names、region）已有描述。描述中额外提供了names的示例（如cn_gdp/cn_cpi_ppi/cn_lpr），帮助理解参数取值，增加了schema之外的价值，但未深入格式或枚举，故评4。

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?

描述明确说明工具提供宏观数据（GDP/CPI/PMI/LPR/国债收益率/财政），并指定使用场景（用户问宏观/经济数据等），同时区分了与ashare_quote和ashare_market_overview的不同（指数行情）。动词明确，资源具体，与兄弟工具区分清楚。

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?

明确说明何时使用（宏观/经济数据/利率/LPR/CPI），并给出明确排除条件（要指数行情用其他工具），同时提及只读查询和更新日历，提供了完整的适用场景和限制。

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