macro_china_gdp_yearly

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that data spans from 20110120 to present and that it returns a pandas DataFrame, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like update frequency, pagination, or potential errors, but with annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise, containing a title, URL, return type, and a note about the return format. The structure is clear but includes a redundant '金十数据中心-中国 GDP 年率报告' repeated from the title and a standard docstring format. No wasted sentences, but it could be tighter.

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 tool with no parameters, the description covers the return type and data range. However, it does not explain the columns of the DataFrame, the meaning of '年率' beyond the name, or how this tool differs from macro_china_gdp. Given the large number of sibling tools and lack of output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 provides complete coverage (100%). The description reinforces that no parameters are needed by simply stating the data range and return type. With 0 params, baseline is 4, and the description adds reasonable context.

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 resource: China GDP year-on-year rate report from Jin10 Data Center, with a specific data range. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve', relying on the name and context. It distinguishes from siblings like macro_china_gdp by specifying '年率' and the data range.

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 such as macro_china_gdp or other GDP-related tools. There is no mention of preferred use cases, exclusions, or comparisons. The description merely states what it is and provides a URL.

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