bea_fixed_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: annual frequency, release timing, and concrete table names with meanings. It does not mention output format or pagination, but that is a minor gap given the low-risk read-only nature.

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: the purpose appears in the first line, followed by essential scope, update cadence, and table examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes key facts scannable. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool 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?

For a read-only tool with two optional parameters Asiatic, the description supplies defaults, valid table examples, data coverage, temporal frequency, and a pointer for discovering more tables. No output schema exists, but an agent likely needs no more than this to make a correct call. A slight gap is the lack of any hint about the response shape, which would otherwise make this a 5.

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 describes both parameters at 100% coverage, including defaults and the year format. The description adds meaning by enumerating common table names and what each one represents (e.g., FAAt101 current-cost net stock by type). This goes beyond the schema's generic 'table name' description, so the definition adds useful semantic value.

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 clear verb-object pair: 'Get Fixed Assets data — net stock, depreciation, and investment tables.' It names the specific resource and scope, listing common table identifiers and data categories. This distinguishes it from sibling BEA tools like GDP or international transactions without requiring schema inspection.

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 sets clear context: annual data only, update cadence, and data coverage (private/government fixed assets, equipment, structures, IP products). It directs the agent to bea_dataset_info for table discovery, which serves as an alternative lookup path. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other BEA datasets, so it stops short of a 5.

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