macro_usa_unemployment_rate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the full data range (1970 to present), the source URL, and the return type (pandas.Series). Since there is no output schema, this return-type disclosure is especially valuable. It does not cover update frequency or what the Series contains, but it adds solid behavioral context.

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-loaded: the first line states the resource and data range, followed by a source URL and a brief return-type note. The URL and docstring-style return lines are terse, though slightly noisy for an agent. Overall efficient and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter historical data tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing pieces: data coverage (1970 onward) and return type (pandas.Series). It could further specify update frequency or what the Series index/values represent, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. No parameter information is needed, and the description does not attempt to add any, which is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource ('美国失业率报告') and a precise temporal scope ('数据区间从 19700101-至今'). It is distinguishable from other macro tools by country and indicator, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings or name an alternative. Clear purpose, limited sibling comparison in text.

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 exclusions or prerequisites. The description only provides the data range and source URL, leaving usage entirely implied by the tool name.

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