macro_china_passenger_load_factor

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 the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and a source URL, offering some context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits, such as data range, potential missing data, or request behavior. With annotations covering the main concerns, a score of 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 concise, containing the title, source URL, return value, and return type in a few lines. It is not bloated, but the structure is fragmented (multiple lines without full sentences) and the information is somewhat sparse. Still, every part adds a small piece of context, so it earns a 4.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the return looks like. It states the return type is pandas.DataFrame and labels the content as '民航客座率及载运率', but it does not specify columns, date range, or data granularity. For a no-parameter read-only tool, this is adequate but leaves the agent uncertain about the actual data structure. A 3 reflects this acceptable yet incomplete explanation.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there is nothing to explain. The description correctly avoids fabricating parameter details.

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 resource as '民航客座率及载运率' (civil aviation passenger load factor and load factor) from Sina Finance, which conveys the subject matter. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', relying on the tool name and title to imply the action. It does distinguish from siblings by naming a specific macro indicator, but the absence of a clear action verb makes it moderately clear rather than fully explicit.

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 the many other macro_china_* tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or suitable contexts. Only the data source URL is given, which is not usage guidance. The intended use is merely implied by the title and name.

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