macro_china_gyzjz

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame), which is helpful but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as data granularity, update frequency, or potential network dependency. 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 compact, consisting of a title line, a URL, and a return type. It is easy to scan and contains no unnecessary filler. However, the title is redundant with the description, and the lack of any usage context slightly reduces its structural polish.

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 read-only tool with no parameters, the description provides core information: what data it returns and from where. However, it does not specify the format or columns of the DataFrame, the time range covered, or how the data is organized. The annotations cover the read-only nature, but the description only minimally fills in the data semantics.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no need for parameter explanations. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool as providing industrial value-added growth (工业增加值增长) from Eastmoney's economic data section, with a source URL. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling macro_china_* tools by naming the specific indicator. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'fetch' or 'retrieve', relying on the return type to imply the operation.

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 the many other macro_china_* siblings. The description only lists the source URL and return type without any context about typical use cases, data frequency, or when an alternative would be more appropriate.

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