macro_china_pmi_yearly

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the start date of the series and the upstream source URL, which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about update cadence or freshness.

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 front-loads the data range. It contains mild redundancy, restating the dataset name twice (':return: 中国年度 PMI 数据') and duplicating the date range already carried by the annotation title, but no sentence bloats the description overall.

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?

With zero parameters and rich annotations, the description mostly holds up, and it usefully indicates a pandas.DataFrame return. But with no output schema, an agent still cannot know the series' columns, frequency definition, or units. Providing the return type is a partial compensation, not a full one.

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; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema and the absence of arguments are consistent with the description, which presents this as an unfiltered fetch.

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 (China yearly PMI data) and its coverage window (2005-02-01 to present), so an agent can tell what data comes back. However, it has no action verb and offers no differentiation from close siblings such as macro_china_pmi or macro_china_cx_pmi_yearly, which are different PMI series. Adequate but not distinguishing.

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 the many sibling PMI/China macro tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives named. The agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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