macro_china_ppi_yearly

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the data range and source URL, but doesn't disclose potential output size or any quirks beyond the return type. This is acceptable given the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 extremely concise, with the main statement in one line, followed by a source URL and return type in docstring format. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no redundant text.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description provides the data range, source, and return type (DataFrame). It could mention the exact columns or units, but the absence of an output schema is compensated by the clear statement of what is returned. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for this simple tool.

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 there is no parameter documentation needed. The schema is empty, and the description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 states the tool returns China's annual PPI data with a specific date range (19950801 to present), which clearly identifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like macro_china_ppi by specifying '年度' (yearly), though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'return'.

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 tool's purpose is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative PPI tools (e.g., macro_china_ppi for monthly data). The data range and source URL provide some context, but no direct alternative comparisons or exclusion criteria are given.

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