bea_gdp_national

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 the data content (GDP, growth, components, deflators) and common table names. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as return format, data limits, historical coverage, or seasonality adjustments, which would be relevant beyond the read-only hint.

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 two short paragraphs: the first states the purpose in one sentence, and the second is a compact bullet list of common table names. No fluff or repetition; 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a read-only data retrieval tool: it states the data source, major content categories, and offers a meaningful table reference list. The main gap is the absence of explicit differentiation from other BEA tools, which would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), providing a baseline of 3. The description enhances parameter semantics by expanding the table_name choices beyond the schema's brief list, including T30100 and clarifying real vs. nominal tables. This adds meaningful value for selecting the correct table.

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 and resource: 'Get U.S. national GDP data from the NIPA tables.' It clearly identifies the scope (national GDP) and differentiates from sibling tools like bea_gdp_by_state or bea_gdp_by_industry. The listed components and table names further specify what the tool offers.

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 national GDP data through its title and first sentence, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings such as bea_gdp_by_state or bea_gdp_by_industry. No alternative, exclusion, or prerequisite is mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the correct context.

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