获取美国经济指标

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the indicator coverage (ISM/Markit PMI series), but it does not mention data source, update frequency, or any limitations beyond what the parameter schema implies. This is a modest amount of added 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 concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it does not use its brevity to include any additional guidance or context.

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 description plus the schema are enough for a basic call: a user knows this returns US PMI-related indicators and can set an optional month limit. However, given the large number of macroeconomic and PMI-related sibling tools, the absence of positioning guidance, source context, or update frequency leaves the definition only minimally complete.

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 only parameter, 'limit', is already fully described in the schema as '返回月数' (number of months returned), and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 clearly states a specific action ('获取') and a specific resource: US ISM manufacturing PMI, Markit manufacturing PMI, and services PMI. It is distinct from many siblings by explicitly naming US-focused indicators, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other PMI/macro tools.

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 related alternatives such as global_pmi, macro_pmi, or fred_data. There is no mention of preferred use cases, exclusions, or conditions that would make this tool the correct choice.

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