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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: dataset source (Table 1), units (billions of dollars), breadth of sector coverage, and annual/quarterly frequency options. No contradiction.

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?

Five compact sentences front-load the main purpose and include only useful details: source table, units, sector coverage, frequency options, and a use case. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. With 3 optional parameters fully described in the schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description contains everything an agent needs to select and correctly invoke the 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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a list of major NAICS sectors and mentions frequency options, but these are already largely captured in the 'industry' and 'frequency' parameter descriptions. It does not introduce new semantics beyond the schema.

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 description opens with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a precise resource ('value added by NAICS industry sector from the BEA GDP by Industry dataset'), plus Table 1 and units (billions of dollars). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling BEA tools like bea.national.gdp, bea.regional.state_gdp, and bea.international.trade_balance.

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 description explicitly says 'Use for industry-level economic analysis and sector benchmarking,' which gives a clear context for when to select this tool. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the framing makes it evident this is not for aggregate GDP or regional measures.

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