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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety profile, so the description's added value is its disclosure of return behavior: sorted high-to-low, exact unit, missing-value evidence, GeoFIPS, source hash, and attribution. With no output schema, this materially helps the agent understand what it will receive.

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?

Core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return details and example queries. It is slightly long with three quoted examples, but each sentence carries distinct information (capability, returns, routing/exclusion).

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 compare tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the return payload (sorted values, unit, missing-value evidence, GeoFIPS, source hash, attribution) and clarifies the multi-state scope. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are documented, and the description's '2–8 states' and 'one indicator' clauses are consistent with the schema rather than adding new syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (compare) plus the resource (one official BEA SASUMMARY annual indicator) and scope (2–8 states or the United States, exact year). The multi-state comparison framing clearly distinguishes it from the single-state profile/history/trend BEA siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Provides concrete when-to-use examples ('compare 2024 Texas and California GDP', 'which of these states had higher 2023 per-capita income?') and an explicit exclusion ('does not rank all states unless they are explicitly supplied'). It does not name the alternative BEA siblings (e.g. bea_state_economic_history/trend), so routing relies on inference.

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