macro_china_supply_of_money

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the source URL and return type (pandas.DataFrame). This confirms it's a safe read operation returning tabular data, adding context beyond the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, but it includes a raw URL and docstring-style return statements that could be more polished. It's reasonably concise but not exceptionally structured, with a few lines that carry limited value for an agent.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters, clear annotations, a source URL, and return type indication, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what data will be returned and that it's a safe read operation. It lacks details like time range or columns, but with no params and a well-known metric, this is acceptable.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description references the return type and data source, and with no params, it doesn't need to explain parameter semantics; the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 it retrieves money supply data from Sina Finance China macro economy, with the title confirming the specific metric. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'macro_china_money_supply', which appears to serve a similar purpose, so it's clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 includes a source URL and return type, implying it's used to fetch this specific dataset, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'macro_china_money_supply'. Context is clear for this specific data, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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