macro_china_hk_gbp

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and providing the source URL, which helps set expectations for the data format and origin. 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 concise (four lines), but the first line exactly repeats the title provided in annotations, and the ':return:' line repeats '香港 GDP'. The URL is useful, and the docstring format with return type is clear. Slight redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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, zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies the data, the source URL, and the return type. It does not describe the columns or time range of the returned DataFrame, but given no output schema and the simplicity of the data, this is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema's empty properties are sufficient. The description's mention of '香港 GDP' reinforces the output but does not add parameter-related semantics.

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 data source (East Money) and the specific economic indicator (Hong Kong GDP), with a URL and return type. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', making it more of a title than a functional description. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like macro_china_hk_gbp_ratio, though the GDP focus is clear.

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. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the large number of sibling macro tools, this absence of usage context is a notable gap.

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