macro_china_hk_ppi

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat that. The description adds the data source URL and the return type (pandas DataFrame), providing some context beyond the annotations, but it does not detail data granularity, date ranges, or update frequency.

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 very brief and includes essential elements: source, indicator, and return type. It is appropriately sized, though the structure is somewhat fragmented as a title-like fragment rather than a full descriptive sentence.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description explains the return value as a DataFrame of the HK manufacturing PPI YoY. However, it omits useful details such as the time range, frequency, or columns of the returned data, which could be important for correct interpretation.

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 and an empty input schema, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to clarify parameter semantics, and none are missing.

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 states the tool returns Hong Kong Manufacturing PPI year-over-year data from East Money, including a specific source URL and return type. It distinguishes this tool from sibling macro indicators by naming the exact metric and region.

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 such as other macro_china indicators. It does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or contextual use cases, leaving the agent to infer its applicability.

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