工业增加值增速

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that data is retrieved; it does not mention whether a time series is returned, the data frequency (e.g., monthly), the statistical source, or any behavior related to the limit parameter. This is a bare retrieval statement with no meaningful behavioral context.

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, compact Chinese sentence with zero redundancy. It accurately and concisely names the exact data series, and every word contributes to meaning. This is an ideal size for a simple data-fetch tool.

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 tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description states the core resource well. However, it lacks contextual details such as data frequency or units, and it does not differentiate itself from closely related macro siblings. This makes it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description does not elaborate on the limit parameter, but the input schema already documents it with 100% coverage. The schema's '返回数量' is terse, yet the description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is 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/get) and a precise resource: 中国规模以上工业增加值同比增速数据 (China's above-scale industrial value added YoY growth rate). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling macro tools such as macro_interest_rate or macro_gdp, leaving no ambiguity about what data is returned.

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 like macro_growth, macro_pmi, or other macro indicators. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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