经济增长数据

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

With annotations absent, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only fetch of time-series growth data and notes frequency aspects like quarterly/annual and year-over-year, but it does not clarify data source, time range, or how the limit parameter affects the result set.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the key data categories immediately and earns its place without redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the low parameter count and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly workable, but it lacks routing context for how macro_growth differs from the overlapping sibling tools and leaves '等经济增长数据' vague about what else is included.

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 input schema fully documents the single limit parameter with '返回期数', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 a clear resource: China GDP (quarterly/annual) and industrial value-added year-over-year growth data. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like macro_gdp and macro_industrial_value_add, which overlap with the listed content.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the more specific macro_gdp or macro_industrial_value_add siblings. The description only lists data contents, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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