bea_gdp_by_state

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already declares the operation safe. The description adds table options and GeoFips format, but these are parameter semantics rather than behavioral traits; it does not disclose return format, pagination, or performance characteristics. Given the annotation covers the safety profile, no contradiction exists.

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 roughly 60 words, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a bullet list for table options. Every sentence contributes useful context, with no redundant filler. The structure is easily scannable.

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?

For a simple data-retrieval tool with full schema coverage and a read-only annotation, the description covers the key decision points: table selection and geography format. It does not detail return values, but there is no output schema to complement, and the output is likely self-explanatory. Missing references to sibling tools are minor given the clear scope.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions covering 100% of them, satisfying the baseline of 3. The description repeats table_name and geo_fips guidance, adding examples like '06000' for CA, but this duplicates schema information. It does not introduce new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Get gross domestic product for U.S. states,' providing a specific verb, resource, and geographic scope. It names the dataset (BEA Regional) and lists table options, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bea_gdp_national and bea_gdp_by_industry.

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 through its scope—'U.S. states from BEA Regional dataset'—making it clear this is for state-level GDP. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for tool selection. The table options provide within-tool guidance, e.g., SAGDP9 for real GDP.

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