macro_canada_core_cpi_yearly

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds that the return type is a pandas.DataFrame and the data is core CPI yearly, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose potential caveats such as data availability, update frequency, or formatting specifics, but this is partially mitigated by the strong annotation coverage.

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 extremely short, consisting of a title, source URL, and return annotations. It is concise and front-loaded with the key information. However, it is somewhat fragmented and reads more like a docstring fragment than a polished description, and the title line repeats the tool name. Still, no words are wasted, and the URL provides actionable 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?

For a parameterless read-only data retrieval tool with strong annotations, the description covers the essential points: data source, geographic focus, metric type, frequency, and return type. There is no output schema, so the description's mention of 'pandas.DataFrame' partially fills that gap, though column details are not provided. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the scoring guide, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no params. The description does not need to compensate for any missing schema information.

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 tool as retrieving Canada's core consumer price index yearly rate from Eastmoney, with the specific resource named in both the title and body. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get', the name and context make the action unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like macro_canada_cpi_yearly by explicitly stating 'core' and 'yearly'.

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 related alternatives such as macro_canada_cpi_yearly or macro_canada_core_cpi_monthly. The description only states the data source and return type, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative references.

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