macro_usa_cpi_yoy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the upstream source URL, the 2008-present history depth, and that the return is a pandas.DataFrame. It does not mention update cadence or freshness, which matters for a macro series.

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?

Three short lines: identity, source link, return metadata. Front-loaded and free of filler. The :return:/:rtype: Sphinx tags are slightly redundant with the annotations but cost little.

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 parameterless data-retrieval call with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what the series is, its historical depth, the source, and the return container type. Missing only freshness/update frequency, which is a minor gap.

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 nothing needs documenting and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not over-explain an empty interface, which is appropriate.

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?

States the source (东方财富), the resource (美国 CPI 年率) and the coverage window (2008-至今), so the agent knows exactly what series it yields. It does not name or distinguish itself from the near-identical siblings macro_usa_cpi_monthly / macro_usa_core_cpi_monthly, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 choose this over alternatives. Given the dense cluster of macro_usa_cpi_monthly, macro_usa_core_cpi_monthly and other country CPI tools, the agent must infer that 'yoy' means year-over-year rather than month-over-month, and nothing in the text confirms that routing.

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