macro_usa_core_cpi_monthly

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating the data range (19700101-present), the source URL, and the return type (DataFrame). However, it does not disclose whether the full history is returned in a single call or other limitations, but the annotations already declare the tool as safe, read-only, and non-destructive, lowering the bar.

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 front-loaded, but it is slightly redundant, repeating '美国核心CPI月率报告' twice and including a docstring-style :return and :rtype. It is compact and each element adds value, but the repetition prevents a perfect score.

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 no-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the indicator, data range, and return type. It lacks an output schema but the :rtype hints at a DataFrame. More detail about columns would improve completeness, but the current information is adequate for selecting and using the tool.

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?

With zero parameters and an empty input schema (100% coverage), the description need not explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately clarifies what the tool returns without requiring parameter details.

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 a US Core CPI monthly rate report and specifies its date range (19700101-present). This distinguishes it from similar tools like macro_usa_cpi_monthly by explicitly mentioning 'core' and 'monthly', though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'queries'.

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_usa_cpi_yoy or macro_usa_core_pce_price. There is no mention of exclusions, alternatives, or the intended use case.

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