bea_nipa_table

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that BEA_API_KEY is required, the route sends explicit year lists, and it returns metric labels with per-line coverage. It also distinguishes uncurated vs curated tables, providing useful behavioral context beyond the name.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, but later sentences contain jargon and could be more concise. It is adequate but not optimally structured.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description covers returned data (metrics, coverage, curation details) and authentication. Missing details on error handling and the refresh parameter, but overall fairly complete for a fetch 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 coverage is 0%. The description explains table_id as canonical TableName and frequency as A/Q/M with validation, and implies year range usage. However, it does not explain the refresh parameter, leaving gaps for 1 of 5 parameters.

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 fetches a complete BEA NIPA table for a year range, specifying the resource and action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_series or find_series, which may also retrieve BEA data.

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 mentions the tool is NIPA-only and specifies frequency constraints, but does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it include when-not-to-use or reference sibling tools.

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