spot_hog_three_way_soozhu

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and source URL, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits like data freshness, rate limits, or error conditions, so it only partially complements the 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 short and directly lists the resource, URL, and return type without redundant text. The structure is functional, though it reads more like a label than a sentence, and it omits an explicit action statement.

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 no-parameter read-only tool, the description provides essential information (resource, source, return type), but it lacks details about the DataFrame's columns, time range, or any caveats that might affect usage. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the empty schema fully covers parameter semantics—there is nothing to document. The baseline of 4 applies since no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 identifies the resource (全国三元仔猪 - national three-way piglets) and the data source URL, making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch' and does not differentiate from sibling hog price tools in the description text itself.

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 alternatives such as spot_hog_crossbred_soozhu or spot_hog_soozhu. The description only states the resource and return type without any usage context or exclusions.

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