bea_gdp_national

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's main behavioral disclosure is reinforced. The description adds that it shows GDP components and deflators, but does not disclose potential limitations such as data availability ranges, update frequency, or error handling. Given the annotation coverage, the description meets a minimum standard.

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 brief and front-loaded, with only three sentences plus a list of common table names. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple tables, frequencies, years), the description covers the key aspects: what data it provides, common table names, and typical usage hints. It lacks explicit mention of output format, but the description implies components. No output schema exists, so the description does enough to inform an agent. A minor gap is absence of mention of data range or filters beyond year.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining common table names (T10101, T10106, etc.) and their meanings, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. However, the defaults and enums are already in the schema, so the extra context is moderate.

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 explicitly states 'Get U.S. national GDP data from the NIPA tables' and lists the specific data shown (GDP, growth, components, deflators). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bea_gdp_by_state or bea_gdp_by_industry by specifying 'national' and referencing NIPA tables.

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 lists common table names and their meanings, implying usage for different GDP metrics. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bea_gdp_by_industry or bea_nipa_underlying_detail, leaving the decision to the agent without clear guidance.

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