macro_usa_retail_sales

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the temporal scope (19920301-present) and return format, which is useful, but says nothing about update cadence, source reliability, or auth. Roughly on par with the calibration's scoped-list example.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: purpose, scope, source URL, then return type. Minor redundancy between the title and description, but no filler sentences.

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 parameterless, read-only data-fetch tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies purpose, data range, source, and return shape. Sufficient for correct invocation, though the absence of an output schema means the single return column description is doing real work.

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 schema does no work and there is nothing to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-param tool is 4; nothing in the description is needed or missing here.

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?

States a specific resource (US retail sales MoM report) with the data scope, so an agent can identify it as a US macro indicator fetcher. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling macro tools (e.g. macro_euro_retail_sales_mom, macro_uk_retail_monthly) beyond the country/indicator name.

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 alternatives among the numerous retail-sales and macro siblings. Usage is only implied by the indicator name.

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