macro_usa_ism_pmi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data range, source URL, and return type (pandas DataFrame). However, there is ambiguity between '数据区间从 19700101-至今' and ':return: 今值' (current value), which could confuse the agent about whether the tool returns the full series or just the latest value.

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 brief and structured with a main line, source URL, :return: line, and :rtype: line. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff. Slightly informal formatting but efficient overall.

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?

The description provides essential details: data range, source URL, return type. However, it fails to clarify whether the returned DataFrame contains the entire historical series or only the current value (今值). This ambiguity could impact the agent's expectations about the output structure. Also, no frequency (monthly, etc.) is specified, though the ISM PMI is commonly known to be monthly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by definition. With no parameters to describe, the description need not add parameter semantics. The description does not introduce any parameter-like details, which 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 clearly identifies the resource as the US ISM Manufacturing PMI report with a date range from 19700101 to present. It distinguishes from sibling tools like macro_usa_ism_non_pmi by specifying '制造业' (manufacturing). However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'get'), though the return type implies retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other PMI-related sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions, leaving the agent to infer via the name and description alone.

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