macro_usa_factory_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the date range and return type (pandas.DataFrame), which is useful but does not go beyond that. It doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like update frequency or source behavior, but for a simple read-only report, this is acceptable.

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 but contains redundancy: the first sentence and the :return: line essentially repeat the same information. The URL is not useful for an agent and the structure is a bit disjointed. It's not overly verbose, but could be more streamlined.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description provides the essential information: what data it returns (US factory orders monthly rate), the date range, and the return type. It does not explain what '月率' (monthly rate) means or whether the data is a full historical time series, but the context is mostly sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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 coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by stating the data range and return type, but there are no parameters to explain. With no parameters, the description appropriately carries no parameter burden, earning the baseline score of 4.

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 names the tool as a US factory orders monthly rate report and specifies the data range (19920401-present). The :return: line also confirms it returns this report as a pandas DataFrame. While it lacks an explicit action verb like 'fetch' or 'return', the intent is clear and distinguishes it from sibling macro tools.

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 instead of other macro_usa_* alternatives. The description simply states what the tool provides, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when US factory orders data is needed. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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