bea_dataset_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds context by listing the four action types and available datasets, which enriches understanding of the tool's behavior beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose details like response formats or rate limits.

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?

The description is well-structured with a concise intro, a bulleted list of actions, and a final list of datasets. Every sentence is purposeful, with no waste or repetition, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool's complexity (4 actions, 5 parameters, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains each action, lists datasets, and clearly positions the tool as an exploration prerequisite. It could go further by describing the return format, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the detailed schema descriptions.

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 schema already fully documents all five parameters with descriptions and examples. The description provides an additional high-level overview (actions, datasets) but largely repeats information already present in the schema, offering marginal added value.

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 tool's purpose: 'Discover BEA datasets, parameters, and valid parameter values.' It is specific in verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling data-specific tools (e.g., bea_gdp_national) by emphasizing it is 'Essential for exploring the BEA API before making data requests.'

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 to use this tool 'before making data requests,' providing clear context for when it should be used. It does not name specific alternatives or exclusions, but the distinction from data-specific siblings is implicit and clear enough.

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