bea_personal_income

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no further behavioral context such as rate limits, auth requirements, or error handling, but it does not contradict annotations. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then uses bullet points to list table options and line code mappings. No redundant information, and the key details are front-loaded.

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?

The description provides enough context for a simple data retrieval tool: it explains the available tables and line codes. It does not describe the output format, but given the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, this is not a critical gap. Annotations cover safety, so the description is largely complete for calling the 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 parameters. The description repeats and organizes the line code and table information that is already in the schema, adding marginal value by presenting it more clearly. It does not provide significant new meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get personal income data by state from BEA Regional dataset.' It specifies the resource (personal income data) and the scope (by state), and distinguishes it from sibling BEA tools like bea_gdp_by_state by focusing on income rather than GDP. The table options further clarify what the tool returns.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (when personal income data is needed) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. However, the tool name and description make it clear this is for income data, not other economic indicators, so an agent can infer the appropriate context without explicit guidance.

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