macro_china_m2_yearly

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint values, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a fixed data range and source URL, which is useful context. However, it does not elaborate on data nuances, such as whether values are seasonally adjusted or what columns the DataFrame contains, but given annotations, this is acceptable.

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 but contains redundancy, with the return type and data description each stated twice (in prose and in :return: fields). It is front-loaded with the main purpose and remains short, so it does not waste much space, but it could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the data range, which is the minimum needed. For a simple retrieval tool it is adequate, but it does not specify the DataFrame's columns or structure, leaving the agent to infer that information.

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 the schema is empty, so parameter semantics are not a burden. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds that the data range is fixed from 19980201 to present, providing useful context beyond the schema.

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 tool as providing China's annual M2 data, specifies the date range, and includes a source URL. It distinguishes from siblings like macro_china_money_supply by explicitly stating 'M2' and 'yearly'. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'get', so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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. It does not mention related tools or scenarios where this would be preferred, despite the sibling list containing similar macro money supply tools. The only context given is the data range and return type.

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