宏观数据查询（同花顺问财）

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose that the tool accepts natural language questions and that data comes from a specific external source (同花顺问财). However, it omits output format, pagination behavior, error handling, and any explicit read-only/non-destructive statement.

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 two tightly written sentences: it front-loads the core purpose and examples, then adds input style and data source. No filler or redundant restatement of the title appears.

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 low-complexity query tool with complete schema coverage, the description covers the domain, input style, and data source. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not describe what the tool returns or what result format to expect, leaving a notable gap.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; it restates that input is a natural-language question but does not enrich page, limit, or query semantics further.

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?

Description states a specific verb '查询' (query) and a concrete resource: GDP, CPI, PPI, interest rates, exchange rates, social financing, M2, and other macroeconomic indicators. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_market_data and query_industry_data.

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 makes the tool's context clear: it is for macroeconomic indicator queries, with examples of covered indicators. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the domain is distinct enough from sibling tools to guide selection.

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