取当日黄金数据简报（Markdown）

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses format (Markdown, a few KB), source, refresh schedule, duplicate-content possibility, and mandatory attribution requirements. It does not mention failure modes or rate limits, but for a simple no-parameter read tool this is adequate.

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 front-loaded with the format and content list, followed by usage timing and attribution rules. The bilingual repetition adds length, but both language blocks serve distinct audiences and the attribution clause is operationally necessary, so the extra text is justified.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is complete: it specifies exactly what the brief contains, its size and format, when it refreshes, how to use it, and how to attribute the source. An agent can call and cite this tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the description correctly requires none. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies because nothing about parameters needs explanation.

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 action and resource: retrieving the daily Markdown brief from xaudaily.com. It enumerates the exact content areas (gold, SHFE, CPI, PCE, nonfarm, etc.) and contrasts itself with parsing the full JSON, distinguishing it from sibling get_gold_readings.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: when you want today's headline numbers without parsing the full JSON. Refresh times are given, and it notes repeated calls within the same day may return identical content. It does not explicitly name get_gold_readings as the alternative, but the full-JSON contrast conveys the decision boundary.

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