获取GDP数据

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the data fields returned and does not mention response format, pagination, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. For a read-only data retrieval tool, this is a notable gap.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the tool's core functionality without any fluff or repetition. It uses precise terminology and is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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?

Given that the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what data the tool returns. However, it could be more complete by noting the frequency (quarterly) is already mentioned, but it lacks details about the time range or how the limit affects the output, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 input schema has a single parameter 'limit' with a clear description and default value, covering 100% of parameters. The description does not add extra meaning about the parameter, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states that the tool fetches China's quarterly GDP data, specifying the key indicators (quarterly value, YoY growth, QoQ growth). This distinguishes it from sibling macro tools like macro_cpi and macro_pmi, which fetch different economic indicators.

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?

The description implies usage when GDP data is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. Given the sibling context, the purpose alone provides some guidance, but no direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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