macro_china_au_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the data range and source URL, but does not elaborate on the DataFrame structure, potential latency, or any operational caveats. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core meaning. The URL and return type are additional but not wasteful; however, they are somewhat disconnected as a single sentence. Overall, it is concise with no fluff.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not specify the content or columns of the returned DataFrame, which is a notable gap for a report-style tool. It gives enough to start using the tool but not enough to fully anticipate the output.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, making coverage vacuously complete. The description's data-range note adds useful context about what historical data is available, which is a baseline 4 for parameter-free tools.

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 Shanghai Gold Exchange report and its data range from 20100331 to present, making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve' and does not explicitly contrast with other SGE-related 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 other macro or SGE report tools. It is purely descriptive and does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts.

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