macro_china_exports_yoy

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds the data range (19820201 to present) and return type (pandas DataFrame), plus a source URL, which is useful context for a zero-parameter tool.

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 key information: what the tool reports, the date range, a source URL, and the return type. Every line serves a purpose and there is no unnecessary verbiage.

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 simple no-parameter, read-only tool, the description provides the essential context: the exact data series, its timeframe, and the return format. It stops short of listing specific DataFrame columns, but the domain and title make the content predictable enough.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly doesn't describe any parameters, and there's nothing missing.

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 tool as a report of China's export year-over-year change in USD, with a specified data range. It distinguishes from sibling macro indicators like imports or trade balance. However, it largely restates the tool's name, so it doesn't add much new information.

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 about when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as macro_china_imports_yoy or macro_china_trade_balance. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and domain knowledge.

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