macro_usa_ism_non_pmi

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the source URL and return type ('pandas.DataFrame'), but the data range it mentions is already present in the annotations title. It discloses no additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or data update frequency.

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 description is short and front-loads the report name and data range. It includes a source URL and Dart-style docstring tags (:return:, :rtype:) that add minor redundancy, but overall it is efficiently structured with little wasted text.

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 no-parameter read-only data retrieval tool, the description provides the essential context: what the report is, its coverage period, the source, and the return type (pandas.DataFrame). No output schema exists, but the returned type is given. The main gap is the absence of usage guidance, but the core information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 are no parameters that require semantic explanation beyond the schema.

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 the specific resource '美国ISM非制造业PMI报告' and its temporal scope '数据区间从 19970801-至今', making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like macro_usa_ism_pmi or macro_usa_services_pmi, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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. It simply states the report name and data range, with no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions for selection over similar macro data tools.

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