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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: values carry heterogeneous years and units because source update calendars differ, and results are aggregate estimates, not forecasts or investment advice — a useful scope caveat an agent would not get from annotations alone.

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 action and indicator coverage, then trigger examples, then caveats; every sentence contributes something. It is a dense three-sentence block, but nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only, three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and complete annotations, the description supplies everything left: indicator coverage, the heterogeneous year/unit behavior, intended use cases, cross-source composition, and the estimate/not-advice disclaimer.

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 geography formats (name, USPS abbreviation, GeoFIPS, US) and the as_of_year semantics are already documented in the schema; the description only restates the 'one state or the United States' scope. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter meaning.

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 and resource — 'Build a compact official BEA annual economic profile' — and scopes it to one state or the US across all 15 hosted SASUMMARY indicators. The 'across all 15 indicators' framing implicitly separates it from the search/history/trend BEA siblings, but no sibling is ever named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 concrete trigger phrases ('BEA profile for North Carolina', 'state GDP income jobs packet') and a composition scenario with Census, BLS, SBA, FDIC, and housing data, which is strong context for selecting it. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names bea_state_economic_trend / bea_state_economic_history / bea_compare_states as the alternatives for those needs.

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