macro_usa_exist_home_sales

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds the historical data range and return type (pandas.DataFrame), which provides some behavioral context, but it does not disclose update frequency or other limitations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with the core meaning, but it contains some redundancy: the Chinese phrase repeats the tool name/title, and the docstring-style :return: and :rtype: lines add limited value. Still, it is appropriately sized with no fluff.

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 parameterless macro data retrieval tool, the description covers the key aspects: what data is returned (existing home sales), the date range, and the return type. The URL provides a source reference. It doesn't describe DataFrame columns, but there is no output schema, and the tool's simplicity makes the description adequate.

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 notes the available data range, which gives context about the dataset's coverage but not about parameter semantics (since none exist). This is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 resource as the US existing home sales annualized total report with a specific date range (19700101–present), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like macro_usa_new_home_sales. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'return', relying on the noun phrase and docstring to imply the action.

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 implies when to use the tool through its title and data range, but it provides no explicit guidance on choosing this over alternative macro indicators, nor does it mention any exclusions or related tools. Usage context is present but not elaborated.

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