Find NAICS Codes

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds useful behavior: a possible 503 while the market index is building, the nuance that `setaside_pct` aggregates across ALL families, and that `family_share_pct` is populated only when `set_aside_family` is set. This gives an agent accurate expectations for transient failures and per-family sorting semantics.

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 purpose and usage condition, then organized into a clear bullet list of parameters. It is longer than average but the length is justified by the 0% schema coverage; every major section contributes. The sort_by bullet is a bit dense but still valuable.

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 10 parameters, no schema-level descriptions, and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains entry-point usage, key parameter semantics, return guidance, and a transient failure mode. It does not cover limit/offset/sort_order, but those are minor conventional parameters, so the overall picture is strong.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and documents most parameters well: sector, prefix, min_market, max_competitors, set_aside_family, keywords, and sort_by, including valid enum values. However, `limit`, `offset`, and `sort_order` are not explained in the description, leaving a minor gap even though their names and defaults are fairly self-explanatory.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Discover NAICS codes by current federal spending and small-business set-aside leverage.' It clearly positions itself as the entry point into the NAICS/Market Pulse tools and names the downstream tools, distinguishing it from siblings like get_naics_market and get_naics_competition.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool 'when you don't already know which NAICS code to look at,' which gives a clear condition for use. It also describes passing the resulting `naics_code` to downstream tools, but it does not explicitly state 'use get_naics_* directly if you already know the code,' so the alternative-usage guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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