bea_international_transactions

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the economic categories covered, listing valid indicator values with human-readable meanings (e.g., PfInvAssets, ExpGds/ImpGds), and explaining frequency codes (A, QSA, QNSA). It also points to bea_dataset_info for a fuller list. It does not disclose response format or pagination, but for a read-only data query the added context is meaningful.

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, starting with the core action and then using bullet lists for indicators and frequency codes. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler, and the structure makes the content 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?

Given the presence of 4 well-documented parameters and a read-only annotation, the description offers a strong overview of the data content and valid values. It lacks explicit return structure or pagination notes, but with no output schema and thorough schema parameter descriptions, it is sufficiently complete for typical usage.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description amplifies indicator semantics by adding PfInvAssets and clarifying ExpGds/ImpGds as exports/imports of goods, plus reinforcing the balance-of-payments context. While it does not add much beyond the schema for year or area_or_country, the indicator examples provide extra practical meaning.

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+resource: 'Get U.S. international transactions (balance of payments) data.' It then clarifies the exact scope (goods/services trade, current account, financial account, capital transfers) and provides concrete indicator examples, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling BEA tools like bea_gdp_national or bea_intl_services_trade.

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 balance-of-payments data but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over closely related siblings such as bea_intl_services_trade or bea_international_investment. It provides examples and data scope but no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so an agent must infer the usage context.

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