获取PMI制造业指数

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data nature (monthly, China, PMI, 50 threshold) but silently omits output format, ordering, historical scope, and how the limit parameter shapes results. As a read-only tool, risk is low, but behavioral ambiguity remains.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the main purpose and include the essential threshold context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers the domain context well (PMI, 50 threshold), but it lacks any mention of return value structure, date range, or data source. Since there is no output schema, this gap leaves the user uncertain about what exactly they will receive.

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 single 'limit' parameter is fully described in the schema (integer, default 24, recommended range 12-60), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool retrieves China's Manufacturing PMI monthly data, specifying the exact resource (中国制造业PMI) and verb (获取). It also explains the 50 boom/bust threshold, and by naming PMI explicitly it distinguishes itself from sibling macro tools like macro_gdp and macro_cpi.

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 the tool is for PMI data, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. Siblings like macro_cpi exist for other indicators, yet no exclusions or comparisons are provided. The PMI interpretation context helps, but the 'when to use' guidance is only implicit.

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