macro_china_czsr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the source URL and return type but no extra behavioral traits like date ranges, refresh behavior, or data granularity. 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 only a few short lines, but it reads like a fragmented docstring rather than a structured description. It includes the URL and return type in a non-sentential format, and while it is not verbose, it lacks a clear lead sentence that would make it easier to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining what the returned DataFrame contains (e.g., time series columns, date, revenue amount). It only says '财政收入' and return type, leaving the data structure and frequency unclear, which is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully documents the absence of arguments. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but with no parameters, there is nothing to explain; baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 provides the tool's Chinese label '东方财富-财政收入' (Eastmoney - Fiscal Revenue) and a source URL, which identifies the resource but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves'. It distinguishes itself from sibling macro tools by being specifically about fiscal revenue, but the action is only implied.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no typical use cases, and no context on how fiscal revenue data is typically accessed. The description is just a data source reference with no practical usage direction.

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