macro_china_cpi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety. The description adds only a source URL and return type (DataFrame), but does not disclose what the CPI data looks like (e.g., time series, columns, frequency) or any other behavior. This is minimal added value beyond the 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 very short, but the ':return:' line just repeats the title, adding redundancy. The source URL is useful, but the overall structure is loose and could be condensed into a single meaningful sentence. It lacks a clear, front-loaded explanation of the tool's function.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at least explain the nature of the returned CPI data. It only says 'China CPI' and a DataFrame, without specifying time period, frequency, columns, or data source details beyond the URL. This is insufficient for a user to understand what will be returned, making the tool underspecified.

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 has no properties, so schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to compensate; the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description confirms it expects no input, aligning with the schema.

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 states that this tool provides China's Consumer Price Index (CPI) data from East Money, including a source URL. The verb is implied rather than explicit, and the tool name 'macro_china_cpi' plus the Chinese title unambiguously identify the resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like macro_china_cpi_monthly or macro_china_cpi_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 alternatives. The description does not mention the distinction between monthly, yearly, or overall CPI tools, nor any context for selecting this one. It simply states the title and source, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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