bea_multinational_enterprises

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds contextual detail about the data coverage (Outward/Inward/State/Parent) and the meaning of ownership levels, which goes beyond annotations but does not describe return formats, pagination, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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-organized, using bullet lists for the required dimensions and a brief note for AMNE-specific flags. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without redundancy.

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?

With 9 parameters, 3 required, conditional dependencies, and no output schema, the description covers the most important semantics for correct invocation: required parameters, valid values for Direction and Classification, and AMNE-specific flags. Minor gaps remain, such as year format and advanced use of series_id, but these are documented in the schema's parameter descriptions.

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, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains what each DirectionOfInvestment value means (e.g., 'Outward': U.S. investment abroad / foreign affiliates) and clarifies which classification options are relevant for AMNE. It also explains the meaning of ownership_level and non_bank_affiliates_only values, raising the score above baseline.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving Direct Investment (DI) and Activities of Multinational Enterprises (AMNE) data, with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the main dimensions (DirectionOfInvestment and Classification). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling BEA data tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 conditional usage guidance, such as setting ownership_level and non_bank_affiliates_only for AMNE stats, and notes which Direction values are AMNE-only. It implies when the tool is appropriate but gives no explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria for choosing a sibling dataset tool.

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