macro_usa_core_ppi

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 genuinely useful context beyond that: the historical start date and the returned field (今值 %), which tells the agent the metric is expressed as a percentage.

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 core statement is front-loaded and short, but it pads with a raw documentation URL and doctest-style :return:/:rtype: tags that are largely internal artifacts. It is acceptable but not tight.

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 no-argument macro data lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and over what period. It stops short of describing the DataFrame structure (columns, index, frequency), so an agent cannot fully anticipate the response shape.

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 at the argument level; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. Schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 resource (美国核心生产者物价指数 / US Core PPI report) and its coverage window (20080318-present), so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. The 'core' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling macro_usa_ppi, but no explicit differentiation is stated.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though a close sibling (macro_usa_ppi, headline US PPI) exists and would need disambiguation. The only usable context is the date range, which is scope rather than usage direction.

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