macro_china_construction_index

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and a source URL, which are useful but minimal. It does not disclose data granularity, column structure, or any potential limitations.

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, totaling three lines. It leads with the key identifier and includes a source URL and return type. However, the format is a raw docstring with minimal structure; the URL is a long string that may clutter the description without adding immediate semantic value. It is concise but not polished.

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 tool with no output schema and no parameters, the description should compensate by explaining what data is returned, its structure, or the time range. The description merely restates the name and gives a URL, leaving the agent to guess the DataFrame columns, whether it is historical or current, and the update frequency. This is inadequate for a complete understanding.

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, so the schema provides no constraints. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. No value is lost here.

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 states '建材指数' (Building Materials Index) and a source URL, which conveys the resource, but lacks a specific verb like 'returns' or 'fetches'. It is essentially the title repeated, providing no scope details (e.g., historical vs. current data). This does not distinguish it from similar macro indices like macro_china_energy_index or macro_china_construction_price_index.

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. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implicit signal is the name itself, which is already available to the agent without reading the description.

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