macro_china_cx_services_pmi_yearly

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the data range and source URLs, which provide context about the data's provenance and scope, but does not disclose details like update frequency or network/dependency behaviors beyond what annotations cover.

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 relatively short but includes redundant elements: the first line duplicates the title from annotations, and the two URLs add length without providing actionable instructions for the agent. It is front-loaded with the report name, but the extra lines could be streamlined for better clarity.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the essential facts (what data, range, and return type). However, it omits details about columns or content of the DataFrame, which would be helpful since there is no output schema to fall back on. This is a minor gap for a low-complexity tool.

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, so the schema already fully covers this dimension. The description's mention of a fixed data range ('数据区间从 20120405-至今') reinforces that no user input is needed, and the return type is stated, providing adequate context for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the resource as '中国财新服务业PMI报告' (China Caixin Services PMI Report) and provides the data range starting from 20120405, making the tool's purpose clear. It is specific about the sector (services) and the data source, distinguishing it from official PMI tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch'.

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 alternatives such as macro_china_cx_pmi_yearly or macro_china_pmi_yearly. There are no conditional statements, exclusions, or mentions of alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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