macro_usa_durable_goods_orders

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 coverage window (20080227-present) and the return type (pandas.DataFrame). It does not mention update cadence, pagination, or refresh behavior.

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 definition is short and front-loads the report identity and date range. The raw URL and Sphinx-style (:return:/:rtype:) lines are somewhat redundant metadata rather than agent-facing guidance, but the text is 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?

For a zero-parameter data-fetch tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what data, its temporal range, and the return type (DataFrame). It stops short of describing the returned columns or update frequency, but nothing critical for a correct call is missing.

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 no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering inputs are required.

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 states a specific resource (US durable goods orders monthly report) and even scopes it temporally (data from 20080227 to present). However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling macro indicator tools (e.g. macro_usa_factory_orders), relying on the name alone to distinguish it.

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 reach for this tool versus the dozens of other macro_usa_* siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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