macro_swiss_cpi_yearly

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds only a source URL and return type. It does not disclose data coverage, update frequency, or potential limitations. With annotations already covering safety, the description provides minimal additional behavioral context.

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 under-structured; it consists of a title, a URL, and return annotations. It front-loads the main purpose but lacks explanatory sentences. It is not verbose, yet it reads more like a label than a crafted description.

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 tool, the description provides the essential details: source, indicator, and return type. However, it omits information about the data's time range, frequency, or columns, and does not differentiate it from the many similar macro tools. It is minimally complete but not rich enough for easy selection.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema fully covers this aspect. The description supplements with the return type (pandas DataFrame) and the specific indicator name, which adds useful semantic context. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

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 resource (Eastmoney Swiss economic data) and the specific metric (consumer price index yearly rate). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the country and indicator explicitly. The verb is implied but unmistakable given the tool naming convention.

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 intended use is implied: to retrieve yearly CPI data for Switzerland from Eastmoney. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. It relies on the name and title to convey usage context.

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