macro_china_industrial_production_yoy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the historical start date and source URLs, which is useful context, but it does not describe update frequency, rate limits, or any behavioral traits that would materially change how the agent invokes the tool.

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-loads the report name and date range before the source URLs and return type. It is efficiently sized for a no-parameter data-fetch tool, though the raw URL lines are somewhat noisy.

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 macro report with no output schema, the description supplies the report identity, date range, and source links. It could be stronger by mentioning column structure or update cadence, but it gives enough context for an agent to call the tool 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 has zero input parameters and schema coverage is complete, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to document parameters and adds nothing in this area.

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 a specific economic report (China industrial value added YoY) and its date coverage (19900301-present), so an agent can tell broadly what data it returns. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings such as macro_china_gyzjz or other industrial-production series, leaving the choice ambiguous.

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 report versus alternatives like macro_china_gyzjz or macro_usa_industrial_production, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description provides no routing information beyond the title.

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