macro_china_gdzctz

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds that it returns a pandas DataFrame and includes a source URL, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as data coverage, frequency, or potential errors. This is acceptable for a simple read-only fetch but adds limited value beyond 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 extremely concise, consisting of a title, URL, and return type. Every line earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 names the indicator and return type, but without an output schema it lacks details about the DataFrame's columns, frequency, units, or date range. An agent may not know if the data is a time series or a single value. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no other structured output description.

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 is empty and there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter information.

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 as China urban fixed asset investment data from East Money (东方财富), and the ':return:' line indicates it returns this data. It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the meaning is unambiguous given the docstring format. It differentiates from siblings by naming a specific economic indicator, though it does not explicitly contrast with other macro indicators.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool, what alternatives exist, or any exclusions. An agent would have to rely solely on the tool name to infer its purpose relative to the many similar macro_china_* siblings.

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