macro_china_imports_yoy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the data range and source URLs, and states the return type (pandas.DataFrame). It does not disclose additional behaviors like column structure or data frequency, but given the strong annotation coverage, a 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 poorly structured, starting with a redundant title phrase, then two URLs on separate lines, and ending with return/rtype lines. It reads like a docstring dump rather than a curated definition. It could be condensed into one or two clear sentences.

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 provides the data range, source URLs, and return type, which is useful for a simple no-parameter tool. However, it does not specify what columns or fields the DataFrame contains, nor the data frequency (monthly? quarterly?). Without an output schema, this leaves gaps in understanding the returned data structure.

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 adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, so no information is 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 provides a report on China's imports YoY in USD, with a specific data range (19960201-present). It names the resource and metric precisely. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like macro_china_exports_yoy, relying on the name rather than description to distinguish.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides data range and source URLs but no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For a tool with many macro-related siblings, this is a clear gap.

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