Discover Offices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is met by adding meaningful context: this tool is free on every plan, returns office-level win facts, and office_code occupies its own namespace with no shared identifier links out. This disclosure helps an agent reason about data scope and plan access beyond the 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 organized with a concise lead sentence, a short 'when to use' paragraph, a bulleted parameter list, and a follow-up note. Every sentence earns its place, though the opening paragraph is slightly verbose and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Combined with the annotations and output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, return fields, usage context, follow-up tool, and access/namespace caveats. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by documenting each parameter: NAICS is required with a 2-6 digit range and example, sort options are defined with their ordering logic, and limit has a max of 100. This exceeds the bare schema by giving actionable semantic meaning.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('find'), resource ('contracting offices'), and dimension ('buy a NAICS code') with ranked results. It explicitly contrasts itself with department-wide averages and names a sibling tool (get_office_profile) for cross-NAICS analysis, making it easy to distinguish from related tools.

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?

Clear use case is given: 'who actually buys this, not just which department' and explains why office-level ranking matters. It points to get_office_profile as the follow-up for full office-level analysis, though it does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives with the same depth.

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