macro_china_shibor_all

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context about data range, data source URLs, and that it returns a pandas DataFrame with current values in percent. However, it doesn't disclose whether the data updates frequently, whether all tenors are included, or any potential quirks.

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 compact but somewhat unstructured, mixing a title, URLs, and docstring-style lines. The URLs add provenance but take up space without explaining behavior. The front-loading of the report name and data range helps, but the formatting is inconsistent.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description provides the essential facts: the data source, time range, return type, and unit. However, it does not specify what columns the DataFrame contains (e.g., tenors like O/N, 1W, 1M) or whether this is a historical series or just current values, which is a notable gap.

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 the input schema is empty. The description correctly highlights the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and the unit (%), which is the key semantic info. No parameter explanation is needed.

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 the Shanghai interbank offered rate (SHIBOR) report, with a data range and return type. It distinguishes itself from sibling macro tools by naming a specific financial report, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'fetches' or 'returns historical data.'

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 doesn't mention exclusions, alternatives, or the specific scenario for which SHIBOR data would be needed. The intended use is implicit from the name but not explicitly stated.

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