macro_usa_industrial_production

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context: the data range, the return format (current value %), and the pandas DataFrame return type. It also includes a source URL for reference, which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact, consisting of three lines: a title/data range, a source URL, and a return annotation. It is efficiently structured, though the first line is somewhat redundant with the title annotation.

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 read-only tool, the description provides essential details about data coverage, return unit, and return type. However, it is ambiguous whether the returned DataFrame contains the full historical series or just the latest monthly value, since the date range suggests the former while '今值(%)' implies the latter. With no output schema, this ambiguity remains unresolved.

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 accepts zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to document parameters but does add value by explaining the return value is the current value in percent, which is helpful for an agent invoking the 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 tool as '美国工业产出月率报告' (US Industrial Production Monthly Rate Report) and specifies the data range from 19700101 to present. The return annotation clarifies it outputs the current value in percent. However, no explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' is used, and it relies on the tool name 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling macro_usa_* tools. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases. The only signal is the tool name itself, which may differentiate it but is not explicit.

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