article_epu_index

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the return type (pandas.DataFrame) and nothing about coverage (which countries, what frequency, date range, update cadence, or offline/network requirements) beyond what the openWorld annotation implies.

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 definition is short and the resource name is front-loaded, which is good. However it is formatted as Sphinx docstring directives (:param:, :type:, :return:, :rtype:) that duplicate the schema's type information, and the bare URL is presented without explanation.

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 single-parameter tool with a default and rich annotations, the description is minimally sufficient: the agent knows it passes a country name and gets back a DataFrame. It omits what the agent would want to judge fit — data frequency, historical span, and available country coverage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it identifies symbol as a country name (指定的国家名称) and gives a concrete example ('China'). It does not enumerate valid country values, which is the one remaining gap.

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 names the resource (经济政策不确定性指数) and cites the source URL policyuncertainty.com, so an agent can tell it returns an EPU index series. But it uses no verb (fetch/get/list) and gives no scope or differentiation from its nearest siblings (article_ff_crr, article_oman_rv, article_rlab_rv), leaving the purpose implied rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The source URL hints at the dataset's domain, but the agent gets no criteria for choosing this tool over the many macro_* siblings that also expose country-level economic indicators.

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