macro_usa_adp_employment

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and destructive safety traits, lowering the burden. The description adds value by providing the date range and source URL, but lacks details on update frequency, units, or interpretation, leaving room for more transparency.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose and data range. The docstring remnants ':return:' and ':rtype:' are slightly redundant but not disruptive, keeping the description efficient.

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, it provides the report name, date range, source URL, and return type. Missing context includes the actual data content (e.g., employment change in thousands), frequency, and how to interpret the series, making it adequate but incomplete for full understanding.

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 appropriately notes the return type as pandas.Series, which adds a bit of semantic clarity even though no parameters exist to explain.

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 US ADP employment report (美国ADP就业人数报告) and the data range since 2001-06-01. It specifies the resource and scope, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling macro_usa_non_farm, so it loses a point for missing differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like macro_usa_non_farm or other employment indicators. The description simply states what the tool returns without any contextual 'when to use' or exclusions.

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