macro_uk_rightmove_yearly

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, providing safety transparency. The description adds that it returns a pandas DataFrame, which is a small behavioral detail. It does not describe potential side effects or data update behavior, but the annotations cover the key safety profile, so this is adequate.

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 short and to the point, containing the title, source URL, and return type. It is not verbose, but it is fragmented into three lines without clear labeling (e.g., 'Returns:') and is mostly in Chinese. Still, it is concise and every line provides useful information, though a cleaner structure would improve it.

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?

Given the simplicity (no params, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is nearly adequate. It provides the source and return type. However, it does not explain what the returned DataFrame contains (columns, date range, interpretation of 'yearly rate'), which could be important for an agent to know. There is also no indication of data freshness or any usage caveats.

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 with 100% coverage (trivially). The description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary 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 clearly states the tool provides UK Rightmove house price index yearly data from Eastmoney, with a specific source URL and return type. It names the exact metric and source, making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool macro_uk_rightmove_monthly, though the name implies a yearly variant, so no explicit differentiation is present.

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. It does not mention the sibling monthly version or any other related tools, nor does it specify any context or prerequisites. The description only provides a source URL and return type, which are not usage guidelines.

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