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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful conduct: mixed vintages ('Each value carries its own year and unit because source update calendars differ') and the scope disclaimer ('Aggregate estimates only; not a forecast or investment recommendation'). It does not explain response payload shape, but that is a minor omission here.

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 purpose and scope, then the vintage caveat, then usage examples and disclaimers. Every sentence carries information, though the indicator enumeration is somewhat list-heavy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden and does so at a useful level (15 indicators, per-value year/unit, aggregate-only). The main missing element is explicit routing against its BEA siblings, which prevents a 5.

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, as_of_year, and response_format are already documented in the schema. The description corroborates the geography scope ('one state or the United States') but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Build') plus resource ('official BEA annual economic profile') and an explicit scope ('one state or the United States across all 15 hosted SASUMMARY indicators'). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names or distinguishes itself from the four sibling BEA tools (bea_state_economic_history, bea_state_economic_trend, bea_compare_states, bea_search_state_indicators), so an agent must infer which BEA tool applies.

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 positions the tool as a component of a regional market brief alongside Census/BLS/SBA/FDIC data. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or which BEA sibling to prefer for time-series or comparison needs.

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