Get NAICS Competition

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral specifics: 'Free tier. Factual, never scored,' the 404 condition for no activity in the last 12 months, and the scope 'over the whole FPDS prime-award market.' These go beyond the annotations and inform the agent about cost, error handling, and data source.

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 longer than typical but every sentence contributes: it starts with the core purpose, then details the metrics, then differentiates from siblings, then lists the parameter, then notes free tier and 404 behavior. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the most important information, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple returned metrics), the description is complete: it tells the agent what data to expect, the parameter format, the error condition, and the free/factual nature. An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to enumerate return fields. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 carries the burden. It explains the 'code' parameter as '2-6 digit NAICS code,' which clarifies the expected format. For a single required parameter this is adequate, though it could have included an example or validation notes. The description adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type.

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-resource pair: 'Get how contested a NAICS market is,' and enumerates the concrete metrics returned (offers per award, single-bidder share, etc.). It explicitly distinguishes itself from three sibling tools by naming them and their differing focus, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 names alternatives (get_naics_market, get_naics_simplified_acquisition, get_naics_positioning) and states what each covers ('size + concentration,' 'small-buy value bands,' 'the language'), telling an agent when to choose this tool (for contestability) and when to use others. The context of a 'Market Research / Capture tool' further guides appropriate use.

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