macro_china_cpi_yearly

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 useful non-annotation context (the 1986-02-01 start date and the upstream source), and the :rtype: pandas.DataFrame tells the agent the return shape. It does not describe the columns returned or any rate/refresh behavior.

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 opening line is front-loaded and useful, but the trailing reST boilerplate (:return: 中国年度 CPI 数据, :rtype: pandas.DataFrame) largely restates the first line, with the only new information being the DataFrame return type. Compact overall but partly redundant.

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 parameterless macro-data fetcher with no output schema, the description supplies the coverage window, source, and return type, which is close to sufficient. It still omits the returned columns/fields and units, which an agent would need to interpret CPI values correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is required beyond the empty schema.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: China (中国) yearly (年度) CPI data spanning 19860201 to present, with a source URL. The word 年度 implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling macro_china_cpi_monthly, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as macro_china_cpi_monthly or macro_china_cpi. The only contextual clue is the historical range starting in 1986, which hints at long-horizon annual series but does not route the agent explicitly.

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