state_economy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds content scope (GDP, employment, etc.) but no deeper behavioral traits such as whether results are aggregated, the data source vintage, rate limits, or that the 'May include' list is non-exhaustive. The added value is modest beyond the annotation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a useful list of data categories and a cross-referencing note. No wasted words or redundant restatements of the name.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not clarify what the returned records contain, their structure, or how to filter effectively (e.g., time series versus cross-sectional). The vague 'May include' list leaves the agent uncertain about coverage, and the cross-reference note does not compensate for the lack of explanation about the query semantics (q, where filters).

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%, so the baseline is 3; all four parameters (q, limit, state, where) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add extra semantic detail about the parameters, only restating 'US state' which aligns with the 'state' parameter.

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 queries economic data for a US state and lists broad categories (GDP, employment, workforce, tax, income) with the verb 'Query' and resource 'economic data for a US state.' However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like bea_gdp_by_state or bls_employment_by_industry, which also provide economic data; the mention of federal tools is for cross-referencing, not distinction.

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 state-level economic queries and suggests cross-referencing federal BEA/BLS tools for national context, which provides a partial guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the many economic sibling tools (e.g., bea_gdp_by_state) or provide any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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