macro_info_ws

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the source URL and the fact that it returns a pandas.DataFrame in the docstring, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose behavioral details like date format handling, pagination, or row contents, so it provides only modest value beyond 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 extremely short but not concisely informative; it is under-specified. It blends a title, URL, and docstring without forming a clear, complete sentence. A concise description would convey the tool's purpose and key behavior, but this one only provides a label.

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 only one optional parameter and rich annotations, so it is simple, but the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what the macro calendar contains, how the date parameter filters results, or when to prefer this tool over the many other macro_* siblings. The return type is given, but the returned data structure is not outlined.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description's docstring for 'date' merely says '日期' (date), which only restates the parameter name. It does not specify the expected format (e.g., YYYYMMDD) beyond the schema default. The return type is mentioned but no return structure is described. Thus the description adds very little semantic value for the parameter.

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 is essentially a title and a URL: '华尔街见闻-日历-宏观' and 'https://wallstreetcn.com/calendar'. It lacks an explicit verb or statement of what the tool does beyond implying macro calendar data. There is no clear differentiation from the many sibling macro_* tools that also provide macro-related data.

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 the numerous similar macro tools. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or alternatives. The description is purely nominal and provides no decision support.

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