macro_cnbs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds the source URL and return type, which is some useful context, but it does not disclose any other behavior such as data update frequency, potential errors, or limitations. Given annotations, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 three short lines covering the data name, source URL, and return type. There is no wasted text, and it is front-loaded with the key identifier. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description provides only a high-level label. It does not explain what columns, frequency, or time range the data covers. An agent selecting this tool would lack a clear picture of what data it will get, making the description incomplete for a data-retrieval 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 the baseline is 4. The description mentions the return type (pandas.DataFrame), which adds a bit of insight into what the agent will receive, though no parameter explanation is required.

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 tool as providing China macro leverage ratio data from the National Institute of Finance and Development Laboratory. It names the specific resource and the data type returned, which distinguishes it from sibling macro tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is implied only by the title and description, which is insufficient for an agent to choose it over other macro data tools.

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