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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the description's job is lighter. It usefully adds that data is in millions of dollars, covers all years since 1929, and includes components such as personal income, taxes, and savings. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 compact sentences convey the data source, units, components, frequencies, time coverage, and intended use case. There is no filler or redundancy; the key retrieval purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists and parameter descriptions are complete, the description covers selection-relevant context well: source table, units, time span, components, and use case. The only notable gap is the misleading frequency statement that omits monthly data, which keeps it from being exemplary.

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, but the description actively misleads by saying 'Annual or quarterly frequency' while the schema's enum also includes 'M' (Monthly). The description also doesn't meaningfully enrich the year parameter beyond what the schema already explains, and in fact understates the available frequency options.

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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'BEA NIPA Table T20100', and enumerates the specific data series covered. It distinguishes itself from sibling BEA tools by naming the exact table and subject matter, though it doesn't explicitly compare itself to bea.national.gdp or bea.regional.state_gdp.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: 'Essential for consumer spending analysis and household financial health tracking.' However, it does not state exclusions or mention alternatives among sibling BEA tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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