macro_usa_retail_sales

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the data range (1992-03-01 to present) and the return type (pandas.DataFrame with current value in %). No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication are mentioned, but with strong annotations the description provides reasonable extra context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering the resource, data range, a source URL, and return type. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler. The front-loaded first sentence immediately states the purpose.

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 data retrieval tool, the description is complete enough. It specifies the data range, the return value (current value %), and the return type (pandas.DataFrame). The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear return description. Minor gaps like exact column names or units are not critical for this simple use case.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly focuses on the return value and data coverage. No parameter information is missing or misleading.

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 retail sales monthly rate report and specifies the return value as the current value (%). The data range from 19920301 is also stated, which helps distinguish it from other macro indicators. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', relying on the noun-phrase style common in data 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 versus alternatives, no mention of exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. The description merely states what data is returned and the date range. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name, which is not sufficient for clear guidance.

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