macro_usa_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 interval and return type, which is useful context, but it does not disclose update frequency, latency, or data source behavior beyond a link.

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 brief and front-loads the report name and date range. The trailing Sphinx-style :return: and :rtype: lines are slightly redundant but still compact and informative.

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 simple no-parameter historical data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description supplies the report identity, coverage period, source link, and return type (pandas.DataFrame). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though column-level expectations are not described.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Baseline for a no-parameter definition is 4.

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 report (US Markit Manufacturing PMI preliminary) and gives the data coverage window (20120601-present). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like macro_usa_ism_pmi and macro_usa_services_pmi, though it lacks a leading action verb.

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 choose this report over related siblings such as macro_usa_ism_pmi, macro_usa_services_pmi, or macro_china_pmi. The source URL and date range are present, but no contextual selection criteria are given.

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