macro_swiss_svme

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a return type (DataFrame) and a source URL, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like data frequency, date range, or potential issues. This is consistent with the 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 very compact: a title line, a URL, and a return type/return value docstring. It contains no wasteful prose. However, the first line is more of a header than a full descriptive sentence, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 read-only tool with no parameters, the description conveys the source, indicator, and return type. However, it lacks any information about the returned DataFrame's structure (columns, date range, frequency). This is acceptable given the simplicity, but leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% by default. With no parameters to describe, the description's omission is not a gap. The baseline of 4 applies here.

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 SVME Purchasing Managers' Index for Switzerland from East Money, naming the specific country and indicator. However, it uses a noun-phrase (title) rather than an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', and does not distinguish itself from sibling macro tools beyond the title.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as macro_swiss_cpi_yearly or macro_china_pmi. It simply states the data source and return type, with no mention of selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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