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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is retrieved (US GDP from BEA) but does not describe the return format, data frequency, units, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal and leaves significant ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and no complex behaviors.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the user receives, but it does not. It also does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_gdp, which could lead to confusion. The tool is simple, but the description omits important context about the data's nature and return value.

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 description does not need to explain any. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description adequately handles this by not adding irrelevant parameter details.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'US GDP', and specifies the source 'BEA (NIPA accounts)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_gdp or eurostat_gdp. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 US GDP data from BEA is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_gdp or mention any exclusions. The source specification provides some guidance, but the lack of comparison with siblings limits clarity.

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