macro_usa_ppi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data range (2008-02-26 to present), a source URL, and the return type (pandas.DataFrame), which provides useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe any potential quirks, size, or other behavioral traits.

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 follows a typical docstring format (summary, URL, return, rtype). It is mostly concise, but there is redundancy: '美国生产者物价指数(PPI)报告' appears both in the description and in the ':return:' line. The URL is useful but could be placed as a reference.

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 simple data retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives key information: US PPI, date range, and return type. However, it does not describe the columns, frequency (monthly/quarterly), or units of the returned DataFrame, leaving the agent with ambiguity about the exact data structure.

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 an empty input schema. Per guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not discuss parameters, but none exist, and it mentions the fixed data range, which indirectly clarifies that no input is needed.

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 providing the US Producer Price Index (PPI) report with a specific date range ('数据区间从 20080226-至今'). This distinguishes it from related siblings like macro_china_ppi and macro_usa_core_ppi. However, the action is implicit (it says 'report' rather than a verb like 'get' or 'retrieve').

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 versus alternatives such as macro_usa_core_ppi or macro_usa_cpi_yoy. The description only provides a source URL and date range, with no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or preferred use cases.

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