macro_usa_building_permits

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 behavioral context beyond annotations: it names a source URL and specifies the return type as pandas.DataFrame, though it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or pagination.

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 the report name and date range, then includes a URL and Sphinx-style return information. There is minor redundancy in restating the return value and type, but the content is relevant and not bloated.

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 output schema, the description usefully supplies the return type and source URL. It could be more complete by describing the DataFrame columns or update frequency, but for a no-parameter macro-data retrieval tool with safety annotations already present, it is largely sufficient.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter schema earns a baseline of 4.

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 identifies a specific report, '美国营建许可总数报告', and gives a clear temporal scope from 2008-02-20 to present. It does not explicitly use a retrieval verb or name a sibling tool, but the resource is distinct enough from related macro housing indicators such as house starts or new home sales.

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 tool versus the many sibling macro tools, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisite context. The only context provided is the data range and a source URL, which does not help an agent choose among alternatives.

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