macro_usa_import_price

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive profile, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds the data coverage window (19890201-present) and identifies the returned field (今值 %), which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about format, cadence, or completeness of the 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?

Purpose and date range are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return-type metadata. The source URL adds little functional value but does not bloat the definition significantly.

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 parameter-free data-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers what the report is, its historical coverage, and the returned field. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 (empty object schema), so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the implicit no-argument nature of the call.

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 (美国进口物价指数报告) and its scope (data range 19890201-present), which distinguishes it from the similarly named sibling macro_usa_export_price. It does not explicitly contrast against siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as macro_usa_export_price, macro_usa_ppi, or macro_usa_cpi_monthly. The usage context (retrieving US import price index history) is only implied by the name.

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