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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive traits. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that only published aggregate annual estimates are returned and that 'BEA can revise prior vintages', which is a meaningful data-stability caveat an agent should know.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then examples, then the estimate/revision caveat. No filler, though the returned-field enumeration is somewhat list-like.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating expected return fields (exact value, unit, state GeoFIPS, pagination, source update date, evidence hash, attribution) plus the revision caveat. Together with full schema coverage this is largely complete for a history-query tool.

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 each of the 7 parameters documented inline (limit, offset, year bounds, geography formats, indicator slugs). The description adds little parameter-level syntax beyond the 'one geography/one indicator' framing and a mention of pagination, so the schema does the heavy lifting — baseline 3.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Return bounded annual history') scoped to exactly one official BEA SASUMMARY state or U.S. indicator. The scoping ('one ... indicator', 'annual') implicitly separates it from siblings like bea_compare_states and bea_state_economic_trend without needing to open 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?

Concrete user-query examples ('Texas real GDP since 2018', 'California per-capita income history', 'US employment by year') give a strong sense of the intended invocation context. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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