固定资产投资增速

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately conveys the core data semantics (cumulative YoY growth rate) and the operation is a read-only fetch with no side effects. However, it does not disclose units, return shape, or that the result is a time series bounded by the limit parameter.

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?

A single 18-character sentence that states verb and resource with zero padding. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema fetch tool, the description is close to sufficient, but it omits units, the time-series nature of the data, and any differentiation from the many macro siblings (macro_growth, macro_inventory_growth, macro_gdp). The effect of the limit parameter on the response is also left unexplained.

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%, with the limit parameter already documented as '返回数量' (return count). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, the schema adequately carries the documentation burden.

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 (获取) and identifies a precise resource: China's fixed-asset investment completed amount cumulative YoY growth rate (累计同比增速). It is unambiguous and clearly distinct in subject matter from siblings like macro_interest_rate or macro_money_supply. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from conceptually closer siblings such as macro_growth or macro_inventory_growth.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or the fact that this covers cumulative YoY growth rather than other growth metrics. An agent must infer usage context entirely from the tool name and title.

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