macro_usa_crude_inner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the historical coverage range (19830107-present), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about granularity, update cadence, or return shape beyond the rtype.

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?

Front-loads the resource and date range, but the ':return: 美国原油产量报告' line merely restates the title and the bare URL adds little actionable signal. Mild redundancy without being 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?

For a 0-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives the resource, coverage window, and return type, which is minimally sufficient. Missing are update frequency and a note on how this differs from the other crude-oil tools.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless full-history call with no filtering options.

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 a specific resource (US crude oil production report) and adds useful scope (data from 1983-01-07 to present). This distinguishes it partially from crude-related siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with macro_usa_eia_crude_rate or macro_usa_api_crude_stock.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite many closely related crude/inventory tools (macro_usa_eia_crude_rate, macro_usa_api_crude_stock, macro_usa_rig_count) in the sibling set. The agent must infer from the name alone which crude series to pick.

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