Get NAICS Leaderboard

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

The read-only and idempotent annotations are reinforced with concrete runtime behavior: 400 for invalid board names, 503 while the market index is building, and the fact that results carry a naics_code intended for downstream tools. This adds meaningful behavioral context 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 compact and uses a clear structure: an intro sentence, a distinction sentence, bullet-style parameter notes, and a short return/error note. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this description covers permitted values, limit constraints, return usage, and error conditions. The agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has no descriptions and no enums, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly enumerates every accepted board value and caps limit at 100, giving an agent exactly what it needs to construct valid arguments.

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 browses curated, ranked NAICS market leaderboards and explicitly distinguishes it from find_naics_codes' open filtered search. The 'fixed set of named rankings' phrase further sharpens 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 names the key alternative, find_naics_codes, and draws a clear boundary: curated fixed rankings here versus open filtered search there. It also directs the agent to pass returned values to get_naics_market or downstream NAICS tools, giving useful routing context.

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