bea_gdp_by_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some contextual value by naming the dataset family and table variants, but it does not disclose return format, units, or any boundaries beyond what the schema already states.

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 concise and clearly structured: it leads with a one-sentence purpose, then uses compact labeled lists for table options and GeoFips. There is no filler or redundant narrative, and each line adds useful selection detail.

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 schema plus description together cover the query options and defaults, and the annotations cover the behavioral safety profile, so an agent can reasonably invoke the tool and know what kind of data it returns. It could be even more complete by mentioning units and explicit sibling differentiation, but these gaps are not blocking for a read-only lookup tool.

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 schema already documents all four parameters meaningfully. The description repeats table and GeoFips details but does not add fundamentally new semantic information beyond what is in the parameter descriptions, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get gross domestic product for U.S. states from BEA Regional dataset.' It combines a specific verb, resource, and geographic scope, and the table options further clarify that it serves state-level BEA data rather than national or industry GDP queries.

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 gives useful within-tool guidance by listing table options and explaining GeoFips, and the phrase 'for U.S. states' implies its primary use. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with sibling tools like bea_gdp_national or bea_gdp_by_industry, nor provides when-not-to-use information.

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