macro_euro_ppi_mom

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the data range, return type (pandas.Series), and value meaning (今值, current value in %), but does not further explain any potential side effects or rate limits.

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, including essential info: report type, data range, source URLs, and return type. The URLs are slightly verbose but provide useful reference. No redundant 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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it returns (pandas.Series of current values) and the data period. It doesn't detail the exact data structure, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is sufficient.

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 schema coverage is 100% and no parameter explanations are needed. The description clarifies the return unit and data format, which adds value beyond the schema.

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 states it is a report on Eurozone PPI month-on-month (月率), with a specific data range. It matches the tool name and distinguishes it from other macro indicator tools, though it lacks an explicit verb. The return type and unit are also specified.

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 data range and source URLs but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling macro tools with similar names, and no differentiation or usage context is offered.

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