macro_china_non_man_pmi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context the annotations lack: the concrete date coverage (20160101–present) and the upstream data source URL. It does not describe update frequency or return shape beyond 'pandas.DataFrame'.

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?

Front-loaded with the key identifier and coverage range, and short overall. The trailing ':return:' lines restate the same resource twice (once as PMI, once as DataFrame) and the title duplicates the description, adding mild redundancy without hurting usability.

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 data-fetch tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, the description supplies the essential missing context: what series it returns, its historical coverage, and its source. No output schema exists, but 'pandas.DataFrame' plus the series name is sufficient for an agent to know what comes back.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics to document or clarify, and nothing is misrepresented.

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?

Names a specific resource (China official non-manufacturing PMI) and its data range (20160101–present), which distinguishes it from the manufacturing PMI, Caixin services PMI, and US ISM non-PMI siblings by the 'official' + 'non-manufacturing' qualifiers. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 only states what the data is and its coverage window; there is no guidance on when to select this tool over the many macro_china_* PMI siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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