macro_china_fdi

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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the source URL, but these are minor additions. It does not disclose other behavioral traits like the data range, granularity, or any potential quirks, but given the annotations, the lack of such detail is acceptable.

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 compact and to the point, consisting of a source name, URL, and return type annotations. It does not waste words, though the docstring-style ':return:' and ':rtype:' are a bit awkward. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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?

The description states the tool returns '外商直接投资数据' (FDI data) as a pandas DataFrame, but it does not specify the data's structure, time coverage, or units. This might be acceptable for a zero-parameter tool that returns all available data, but without an output schema, more context would help an agent understand what the returned DataFrame contains. Still, the name and source URL provide reasonable context for a macro data lookup.

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 description is not responsible for explaining parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add anything beyond what the schema already shows (empty object). It correctly implies a no-argument data retrieval operation.

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 returning China's foreign direct investment data from East Money ('东方财富-经济数据一览-中国-外商直接投资数据'), and the name macro_china_fdi matches. It lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get', but the resource and scope are unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling macro tools, but the specific FDI indicator is clear enough.

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. While the name implies it is for China FDI data, there is no explicit context such as 'Use this when you need...' or any mention of how it differs from other macro_china_* siblings. The usage context is only implied by the resource name, which is weak guidance.

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