macro_swiss_trade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. However, the description adds only a source URL and return type, which are not behavioral traits. It does not mention any side effects, data sources beyond the URL, or limitations.

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 short but under-specifies. It reads as a docstring metadata block rather than a structured tool description, lacking any actionable verb or context. Conciseness is not valuable when it omits essential purpose and usage information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the returned DataFrame contains beyond just '贸易帐'. It does not mention columns, time range, or any unique characteristics. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is still insufficient for an agent to fully understand the output.

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 is empty (100% coverage), so there is nothing to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly does not attempt to describe non-existent parameters.

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 return type, restating the tool name and the data it returns ('贸易帐' - trade account). It does not use a verb to indicate an action, and the only additional context is the source URL. This is close to tautological.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like macro_uk_trade and macro_australia_trade, the description provides no selection criteria or exclusions.

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