run_national_econ

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses inputs must be in shadow-price terms excluding taxes/subsidies/domestic-interest transfers, that arrays start at year 0 in 万元, and that single-factor sensitivity and multi-scenario comparison are appended by default. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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 definition is a dense but front-loaded single 'input → output' sentence followed by a targeted pointer to the methodology skill. Every clause carries information, though the packing of conventions makes it slightly heavy for a reader scanning quickly.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must, and does, explain the return values (ENPV/EIRR/BCR/cumulative net benefit/feasibility verdict) plus default sensitivity behavior and data conventions. It is largely self-sufficient for correct invocation, with only auth/side-effect context missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new meaning: benefits and costs must be expressed on a shadow-price basis with transfer payments (taxes/subsidies/domestic interest) removed, and year 0 is the first entry. This contextualizes how to populate the arrays beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific method (国民经济评价/national economic evaluation) and enumerates the exact outputs (ENPV/EIRR/BCR/累计净效益+可行性判定), so an agent knows precisely what this computes. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like run_uncertainty or run_revenue_review, which would elevate it to a 5.

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 this is the tool for national economic evaluation and routes the agent to get_skill_instructions(skill=national_econ) for benefit/cost identification and shadow-price adjustment methodology. It gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no prerequisites, and no direct contrast with alternative evaluation tools, leaving usage largely implied.

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