macro_euro_services_pmi

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: the data range, the return type (pandas.Series), and that it returns the 'current value' (今值), plus source URLs for verification. No contradictions with 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by source URLs and return type. The URLs are somewhat extraneous for invocation but do not bloat the description significantly. The Python docstring style (:return:, :rtype:) is structured and clear.

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 provides sufficient context: data range, return type, and source URLs. There is no output schema, but the described return type (pandas.Series) and 'current value' clarify the expected output. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema fully covers the input surface (coverage 100%). With no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 the Eurozone services PMI final report with a specific data range (from 20080222 to present), distinguishing it from sibling PMI tools by region and sector. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'get', relying on the noun phrase '报告' (report) to convey the action.

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 implies usage through the resource name and data range, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like macro_euro_manufacturing_pmi or macro_usa_services_pmi. There are no exclusions or contextual hints beyond the self-explanatory title.

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