macro_euro_unemployment_rate_mom

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world safety. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the historical data range, the specific return field (今值(%)), and the pandas.Series return type, which helps an agent understand the output shape.

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 front-loaded with purpose and data range, followed by source URLs and return documentation. It is reasonably concise, though the raw URLs and repeated title from annotations add some avoidable length.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the report is, the historical range, and the returned value/type. It is slightly incomplete in not clarifying the monthly or month-over-month nature implied by the tool name, but it is adequate for a no-param read-only data retrieval tool.

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 parameters, so the schema cannot provide parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs.

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 data resource (欧元区失业率报告), its coverage range (19980501-至今), and the returned field (今值(%)). It is distinguishable from other unemployment tools by the Eurozone scope, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative macro-unemployment tools, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The data range gives a hint about coverage but not usage selection.

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