macro_usa_ism_non_pmi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond these annotations: the specific data range (19970801-至今), a source URL, and the return type (pandas.DataFrame). 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 concise and front-loaded: the first line states the report type and data range, followed by a source URL and return type. Every line earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 read-only data retrieval tool, the description covers the essential details: what data, the time range, the source, and the return type. It omits column-level documentation or refresh frequency, but these are not critical for selecting and invoking this simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is appropriate.

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 explicitly states '美国ISM非制造业PMI报告' (US ISM Non-Manufacturing PMI Report) with a data range (19970801-至今), clearly identifying the tool's resource and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like macro_usa_ism_pmi by specifying '非制造业' (non-manufacturing). The source URL and return type further reinforce the purpose.

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. It does not mention related tools such as macro_usa_ism_pmi or macro_usa_services_pmi, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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