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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description focuses on disclosure of output shape: canonical names, definitions, units, coverage, pagination, evidence hash, and attribution. That adds real context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about rate limits or result-size behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is searched, then returns, then usage, then scope — logical and waste-free. The return-field enumeration is long but justified given there is no output schema, though it slightly buries the routing guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value explanation and does so thoroughly, plus it delineates data coverage boundaries and the downstream hand-off to a history call. An agent has enough to decide and invoke correctly.

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% and all four parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, default, or format guidance for limit/offset/query/response_format beyond the schema.

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 verb (Search) and resource (the 15 indicators in the BEA SASUMMARY annual state snapshot), and explicitly bounds scope. It differentiates from siblings by noting this resolves an indicator for a later 'history call', pointing at bea_state_economic_history rather than the compare/profile/trend tools.

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?

It gives concrete trigger phrases ('what BEA state measures are hosted?', 'find regional price parity') and a clear sequential use case (resolve an indicator before a history call). It also states an exclusion ('not the full BEA API or industry detail'), though it names no sibling tool explicitly, so routing is guided but not fully explicit.

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