data_kondratiev

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. The verb '获取' and '原始数据' signal a read-only data query and the parenthetical describes the returned series type, but the description does not explicitly address side effects, caching, or how the method parameter alters the result.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler; the core resource is stated immediately and the parenthetical adds a relevant qualifier. It earns its place efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter, no required inputs, and an output schema is already present. The description plus schema is sufficient to invoke the default behavior, though richer sibling differentiation and method-output clarification would make it fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the output is a PCA synthetic index series, but it does not clarify whether that label applies to all method choices (pca/wavelet/bandpass) or only the default.

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 verb ('获取') and resource ('康波周期原始数据'), with the useful qualifier 'PCA合成指数序列'. It clearly identifies a data-retrieval tool, implicitly distinct from chart/analysis siblings, though it never explicitly names kondratiev_cycle or chart_kondratiev_cycle as alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names are given; '获取康波周期原始数据' only implies a use case rather than explaining it.

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