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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/open-world profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: it enumerates returned fields (value, unit, GeoFIPS, pagination, source update date, evidence hash, attribution) and discloses the revision caveat ('BEA can revise prior vintages'). That revision behavior is a genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return contents and then three illustrative examples. Every sentence carries information; only minor tightening is possible around the example list.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does well to list return fields and revision behavior. It is incomplete on two points an agent needs: how to choose this over bea_state_economic_trend, and how the year-range filters relate to the limit/offset pagination.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds only light framing ('bounded', 'state GeoFIPS', 'unit') that the schema already carries, and it does not clarify how limit/offset interact with start_year/end_year.

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 ("Return") and resource ("bounded annual history for one official BEA SASUMMARY state or U.S. indicator"), making the operation clear. It does not differentiate from sibling BEA tools such as bea_state_economic_trend, which reads as an overlapping concept, so an agent cannot disambiguate by description alone.

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 concrete example queries ("Texas real GDP since 2018", "US employment by year") give implied usage context, and the scope note ('Published aggregate annual estimates only') bounds the domain. However, no when-not guidance or named alternatives are given, so the split against bea_state_economic_trend, bea_state_economic_profile, and bea_compare_states is left to inference.

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