article_epu_index

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a source URL and return type (DataFrame) but does not disclose update frequency, data limitations, or any query caveats. With annotations covering safety traits, the added context is minimal but non-contradictory.

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 very compact, consisting of a title, a source URL, and docstring-style lines. Every element serves a purpose, with no redundant prose, and the structure makes the tool's core information immediately accessible.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description sufficiently covers the parameter, return type, and data source. However, since there is no output schema, it would benefit from more detail about the returned DataFrame's columns, date range, or update cadence to fully support the agent's expectations.

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 only defines 'symbol' with a default value, while the description clarifies that the parameter accepts a country name and provides the example 'China'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description effectively compensates for the missing schema documentation of this single parameter.

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 identifies the resource (Economic Policy Uncertainty Index) and its parameter (country name), and the URL links to the authoritative source. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'fetch' or 'download', so the purpose is inferable rather than directly stated.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related article_* tools, macro tools, or other EPU sources, nor does it describe conditions where this tool would be preferred. The URL and parameter definition are reference material, not usage direction.

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