bea_dataset_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the action-specific parameter requirements, but it does not disclose response format, pagination, or potential errors. Given that annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds only marginal behavioral context beyond the action list.

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 with a clear introductory sentence and a bulleted list of actions. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The dataset list is somewhat redundant with the schema's parameter description but still useful. No unnecessary words; it earns its length.

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 all four actions and their parameter requirements, which is useful. However, since there is no output schema, the description should describe what each action returns (e.g., lists of datasets, parameter names, values). It only implies this via the action names. For a tool with multiple actions and no output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping each action to its required parameters (e.g., 'list_parameters requires dataset_name') and by listing valid dataset names. This clarifies the usage of parameters beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Discover BEA datasets, parameters, and valid parameter values.' It lists all four actions with their exact functions, making it unambiguous what the tool does and how it differs from data-retrieval siblings like bea_gdp_national.

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 explicitly says it is 'Essential for exploring the BEA API before making data requests,' which signals when to use it. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the context strongly implies it is a precursor to data-fetching tools. No exclusions are given, but the usage context is clear.

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