macro_usa_export_price

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 the historical depth (1989 to present) and the return shape (current value in %, pandas.Series), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about update frequency, latency, or data source reliability.

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?

Purpose and data range are front-loaded, and the return type is stated compactly at the end. The two source URLs are somewhat incidental clutter but plausibly useful for provenance, so the description stays reasonably 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 zero-parameter, read-only indicator with no output schema, the description supplies the two things an agent actually needs: the coverage window and the return value/type. It falls short only on update cadence and the routing distinction from the import-price sibling.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter surface for the description to clarify, and it correctly does not fabricate any.

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 — the US export price index report — and its temporal coverage (19890201 to present), so the agent knows exactly what data it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very close sibling macro_usa_import_price, leaving the agent to infer the export-vs-import distinction from the name alone.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the nearest alternative (macro_usa_import_price) or related indicators like macro_usa_ppi. The agent must infer applicability from the name and data range.

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