bea_international_investment

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds meaningful context beyond them by explaining what IIP represents and by defining component semantics such as 'ChgPosTrans' (change from transactions), 'ChgPosPrice' (price changes), and 'ChgPosXRate' (exchange rates). It does not cover response shape or API quirks, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 well-structured: a front-loaded purpose sentence, a one-line conceptual clarification, and short bullets for key parameter values. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant information appears first.

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 four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states defaults, provides valid example values, and points to bea_dataset_info for the full TypeOfInvestment list. The main gap is that the return format/columns are not described, but the parameter space is well covered by the schema and description combined.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by giving meaningful TypeOfInvestment examples with plain-language meanings and by expanding Component values into their economic meanings beyond the schema's option list. Year and frequency are left to the schema, which already documents them adequately.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get U.S. international investment position (IIP) data.' The second sentence clarifies that it returns end-of-period accumulated stocks of assets and liabilities, which distinguishes it from flow-oriented siblings like bea_international_transactions or bea_intl_services_trade. This is enough for an agent to know exactly what this tool provides.

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 by defining the data domain ('end-of-period accumulated stocks'), which suggests it is appropriate for position/stock questions. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bea_international_transactions or bea_dataset_info, and it gives no exclusions or fallback guidance.

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