工业企业库存增速

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. The verb 获取 implies a read-only data fetch, but the description reveals nothing about data frequency (monthly?), source (NBS?), update cadence, or how the result is shaped. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 one tight, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words: verb first, then the precise resource. It earns its place, though a small amount of additional context (frequency, source) could be added without bloat.

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 output schema, no annotations), and an agent can invoke it correctly using defaults. However, the description omits the data frequency, the data source, and what limit means in terms of periods returned, leaving the agent to guess at how to interpret the series. Adequate but thin.

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% - the single limit parameter is already fully documented in the schema with its meaning (返回数量) and default (24). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3, and the schema adequately handles the parameter semantics.

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/get) and names a precise resource (中国规模以上工业企业库存同比增速数据, inventory YoY growth of above-scale industrial enterprises), and the title aligns with it. The series is distinct enough that an agent won't confuse it with macro_gdp, macro_cpi, or macro_pmi. However, it never explicitly disambiguates from potentially confusable siblings such as macro_industrial_value_add or futures_inventory.

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 gives zero guidance on when to choose this tool versus the many macro_* siblings or futures_inventory - no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned. An agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name and the data-series name, which is weak given the large, overlapping-looking macro family.

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