macro_euro_industrial_production_mom

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, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds data range and source URLs, which is useful, but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as update frequency or data limitations.

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 concise but includes a couple of source URLs that might be useful for reference, though not strictly necessary. It front-loads the core purpose and return type, making it easy to parse.

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 data retrieval tool, the description adequately states the data range, return type, and metric. Without an output schema, it would benefit from noting whether it returns the full historical series, but the data range implies this. Overall it's reasonably complete.

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, so the input schema is trivially fully covered. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and there are none to add meaning to. Given the zero-parameter baseline of 4, this is appropriate.

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 returning the Eurozone industrial production month-over-month report ('欧元区工业产出月率报告') with a specific metric ('今值(%)'). The name and description align, and it's distinct from sibling macro_euro_* tools that cover different indicators.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other macro economic indicators (e.g., macro_euro_cpi_mom). It simply states what it returns without context on alternatives or use cases.

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