bea_gdp_by_industry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context about table ID variants and the Industry='ALL' behavior. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as default year range, potential data limitations, quirks with quarterly frequency, or response format details.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The TableID bullet list is clearly structured and easy to scan. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool, with no filler or redundancy beyond slight repetition of schema details.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify return value structure, but it does not. It covers the available parameters and their meanings, but an agent may not know what data fields or formats to expect in the response. The simple read-only query nature and sibling similarity provide some context, so a minimum viable score of 3 is appropriate.

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%, and the schema already documents all parameters (year, industry, table_id, frequency) with detailed enumerations. The description only restates table_id options and adds a note about Industry='ALL', which does not materially extend the schema's semantics.

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 explicitly states the function: 'Get GDP contribution by industry sector nationally from BEA GDPbyIndustry dataset.' This is a specific verb+resource and scope, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like bea_gdp_national and bea_gdp_by_state. The dataset identifier further disambiguates the exact source.

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 implies usage for industry-level GDP data but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. It explains parameter options (e.g., TableID choices) but not the broader selection context relative to other BEA tools.

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