Get NAICS Market

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that size_standard will be null with status 'pending_sba_table', warns not to rely on the response for SBA small-business eligibility, notes the free tier, and specifies the 404 condition for no FY2025+ contract activity. No contradiction with 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 well-organized and every sentence serves a purpose: definition, sibling differentiation, parameter format, data caveat, and error behavior. It front-loads the core function before the caveats and keeps the structure scannable with line breaks and bullet-style detail.

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 output schema exists and the tool has one parameter, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: input format, sibling alternatives, data limitations, error condition, and operational context. No critical behavioral or usage detail appears to be missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds the key format constraint '2-6 digit NAICS code', which is meaningful, but it does not provide examples, validation rules, or guidance on formatting beyond the digit range. The single parameter is minimally but not richly described.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the federal market profile for one NAICS code' and enumerates the exact contents (spending, competition, set-aside leverage, top buyers, top incumbents). It also distinguishes itself from get_naics_positioning by framing this as the AWARD side versus the SOLICITATION side.

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 explicitly names sibling tools and the conditions for pairing: get_naics_positioning for solicitation language, get_naics_simplified_acquisition for small-buy value bands, and get_naics_competition for deeper contestability. It also tells the agent when a 404 will occur, which is a direct usage signal.

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