bea_personal_income

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds table and line code details but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication, or response structure. It provides moderate value beyond 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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses a structured layout for table and line code options. It is slightly verbose but generally concise and well-organized.

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 covers the input parameters well but lacks information about the output format or how to interpret the data. No output schema exists, so the description should compensate; it does not, leaving a gap for agent understanding of return values.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description repeats some schema info but adds examples. Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3; the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 it gets personal income data by state from the BEA Regional dataset, with specific table options and line codes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bea_gdp_by_state by focusing on personal income.

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 listing table options and defaults, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other BEA tools). No when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided.

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