bea_intl_services_trade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the crucial behavioral requirement that BEA mandates a specific TypeOfService or AreaOrCountry, and clarifies that data is annual. It does not mention pagination or response format, but given the annotations, this is adequate.

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-organized: an opening one-liner defining the tool, an IMPORTANT note front-loaded for critical usage guidance, followed by compact parameter value lists. No redundant sentences; every line contributes to correct usage.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema registering, the description covers all parameter semanticships, including defaults and allowed values. It also points to a sibling tool (bea_dataset_info) for exhaustive value discovery. The only missing piece is a description of the return format, which is not strictly required for invocation but would have been useful. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 goes far beyond the schema by listing plausible enum values for type_of_service, trade_direction, and affiliation, including examples like 'Telecom', 'Travel', 'Comp', and 'ChargesForTheUseOfIpNie'. It also explains the interdependency between type_of_service and area_or_country, which is not present in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('U.S. international trade in services data'), and a temporal scope ('annual'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling BEA tools like bea_international_transactions or bea_gdp_national, even without naming them.

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?

Explicitly warns about the critical constraint: 'You cannot use ''All'' for both simultaneously' when selecting TypeOfService and AreaOrCountry. It also directs users to bea_dataset_info for discovering valid values and lists acceptable values for multiple parameters. This is clear, actionable usage guidance.

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