macro_usa_unemployment_rate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context such as the data range (19700101-至今), the source URL, and the return type (pandas.Series), supplementing the annotations with concrete behavioral details.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a useful source URL. The docstring lines ('获取美国失业率报告' and 'pandas.Series') add some redundancy, but the overall size is appropriate and every substantive detail (range, source, return type) is included.

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 with no output schema, the description adequately covers the key aspects: what data is provided (US unemployment rate), the historical period, the data source, and the return type as pandas.Series. It does not specify the data frequency (e.g., monthly), but this is a minor gap for such a 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 and an empty input schema. Since there are no parameters to describe, the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it does not.

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 states '美国失业率报告' (US unemployment rate report) with a specific data range from 19700101 to present, and includes a source URL. The verb '获取' and resource are explicit, distinguishing it from other macro_usa_* sibling tools by its specific economic indicator.

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 clear context: it returns the US unemployment rate report for the range 19700101-present, sourced from a specified URL. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool name and subject matter make the use case clear among sibling tools, especially compared to other unemployment rate tools for different countries.

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