bea_intl_services_trade

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

The annotation already declares readOnlyHint=true, so the tool's read-only nature is known. The description adds the behavioral nuance of the parameter mutual exclusion, which is valuable context beyond the annotation. It does not mention output format or pagination, but the read-only hint covers the main safety aspect.

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 and concise. It starts with a clear purpose sentence, then an important callout, followed by parameter value lists. Every line adds value, with no redundant text, and it is front-loaded with the core function.

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?

The description explains the purpose, key constraint, and parameter values, but with no output schema, it does not describe what the response looks like or any return value structure. For a data-fetching tool, this is a notable gap, though the schema descriptions fill most parameter-level needs. The mention of bea_dataset_info for enumerating values is helpful.

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?

Since the schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, the baseline is 3. The description adds a cross-parameter constraint (TypeOfService and AreaOrCountry cannot both be 'All') that is not visible in the individual schema descriptions. It also lists common values for TypeOfService, TradeDirection, and Affiliation, reinforcing the schema but providing extra semantic context.

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 function: 'Get U.S. international trade in services data (annual)'. This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling BEA tools that cover GDP, personal income, or other metrics. The annual frequency is also explicit.

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 provides explicit usage guidance, especially the critical constraint that 'BEA requires either a specific TypeOfService or a specific AreaOrCountry' and that you cannot use 'All' for both. It also directs the user to bea_dataset_info for discovering valid values. However, it does not compare against alternative BEA tools or state when to choose this tool over others.

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