macro_uk_gdp_yearly

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context, only mentioning the source URL and that it returns a DataFrame. It does not disclose update frequency, data granularity, or potential external dependencies beyond the URL.

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 brief, structured with docstring markers (:return:, :rtype:) and a source URL. It is front-loaded with the metric name. The URL adds some clutter but serves as provenance. Overall, it is efficiently written with no redundant sentences.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify the return structure. It only states 'GDP 年率初值' as the return, which is the metric name, without indicating columns or date range. For a simple no-parameter tool, this is somewhat adequate but leaves ambiguity about the DataFrame contents.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the schema confirms no parameters exist. The mention of return type is irrelevant to parameter semantics but does not detract.

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 UK GDP annual rate preliminary values from Eastmoney, which is a specific resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool macro_uk_gdp_quarterly by specifying the yearly metric. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', relying on the tool name and context.

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. The description does not mention any use cases, exclusions, or related tools, despite a large sibling set with similar macro economic indicators.

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