macro_euro_cpi_yoy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds data range and source URLs, but does not disclose potential issues like data update frequency, error behavior, or whether the returned Series is historical or just the latest value, leaving some ambiguity.

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 very concise, with each line serving a purpose: the report name, data range, source URLs, and return type. No unnecessary words or filler.

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 sufficient context: data range, sources, and return type. It does not mention the series index (e.g., dates) or the exact frequency of releases, but these are inferable from the tool name and data range.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to explain inputs. It adds value by describing the return type (pandas.Series) and the units (%), which helps the agent understand the output.

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 explicitly states '欧元区CPI年率报告' (Eurozone CPI annual rate report) and specifies the data range and return type, making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like macro_euro_cpi_mom by using '年率' (YoY) in the description, though it lacks an explicit action verb.

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 does not mention exclusions or compare with sibling tools such as macro_euro_cpi_mom. Only the data range and source URLs are given, which are not usage guidelines.

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