bea_international_transactions

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 useful behavioral context: it explains the data covers transactions between U.S. and foreign residents, lists default indicator (BalGds), and clarifies frequency options. It does not mention pagination or response format, but for a read-only data retrieval tool this is acceptable.

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 opening sentence, a brief explanation of what the data tracks, and a bulleted list of indicator examples. It is slightly longer than necessary but every section earns its place. The frequency line is concise and useful.

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 data retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the data scope, provides indicator examples, and notes that bea_dataset_info can be used for the full list. It could mention that 'All' for area_or_country returns all breakdowns, but the schema already covers that. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap for this type of 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. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the data categories (e.g., BalGds = balance on goods) and the default values, but it does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 retrieves U.S. international transactions (balance of payments) data, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It lists concrete indicator examples and frequency options, distinguishing it from other BEA tools like bea_gdp_national or bea_intl_services_trade. The scope is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on what data the tool returns and includes indicator examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bea_intl_services_trade or bea_international_investment. The sibling list includes several BEA tools, so explicit exclusion guidance would improve this dimension.

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