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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by enumerating the returned payload (canonical names, definitions, units, coverage, pagination, evidence hash, attribution) and pinning the data scope to a compact annual snapshot of 15 indicators. It does not mention auth or rate limits, so not a 5.

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 the resource and scope, followed by concrete use cases and the boundary statement. Dense but every clause carries information; the first sentence is long yet not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does list the payload fields. Scope boundaries are explicit. It falls short of a 5 only because pagination mechanics and the meaning of the 'evidence hash' are not explained.

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% with all four parameters documented (limit, query, offset, response_format), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema, hinting that the query matches names/definitions/units and that pagination exists, but gives no syntax or format guidance.

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 (search) and resource (the 15 indicators in LiveDataLink's self-hosted official BEA SASUMMARY annual state snapshot), and the second half of the description explicitly bounds the scope against the full BEA API and industry detail. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like bea_state_economic_history or bea_compare_states without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger questions ('what BEA state measures are hosted?', 'find regional price parity') and names the downstream workflow it feeds ('resolve an indicator before a history call'). It also states when not to use it ('not the full BEA API or industry detail'), which is rare and useful.

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