macro_usa_ism_pmi

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 data start date (19700101) and the return field ('今值') plus rtype, but omits update frequency, units, or any access constraints. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 resource name and data range. The URL line and the :return:/:rtype: lines are useful metadata but could be formatted a bit more cleanly; overall no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the resource identity, historical coverage, return field, and return type. For a simple zero-parameter data retrieval, this gives the agent enough to call it correctly, though frequency and units are not stated.

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 is 4; the description does not need to explain any arguments. It correctly avoids cluttering the definition with parameter details that do not exist.

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?

Identifies the exact resource (美国 ISM 制造业 PMI 报告) and its temporal scope (19700101-至今), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like macro_usa_pmi or macro_usa_ism_non_pmi. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or state what makes it different beyond the title itself.

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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The tool's nature makes usage somewhat implicit, but the description provides no explicit context or routing information.

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