Get NAICS Positioning

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and destructive=False, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the 24-month lookback over SAM opportunities, the free tier, and the 404 error when no activity exists. This goes well beyond the structured annotation fields.

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 the core purpose and outputs, then gives usage context, pairing advice, parameter format, and error behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is scannable despite carrying a lot of useful context.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema already present, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: what it returns conceptually, the time window, the data source, the error case, and the intended use. No critical operational detail is 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?

The input schema only provides a bare 'code' string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying that the code must be a 2-6 digit NAICS code, which is important format guidance. It could have added a concrete example or clarified digit-only format, but it adds meaningful semantic value.

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 names a specific verb and resource: getting the language and set-aside makeup for a NAICS code's solicitation side. It enumerates concrete outputs (phrase vocabulary, set-aside share, top soliciting agencies) over a defined window, and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_naics_market by calling out the award side. This is fully differentiated from the large sibling set.

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 clearly frames the tool as a Market Research / Capture tool and tells the agent exactly what the data is for: building a SAM/DSBS profile or capability statement. It also names get_naics_market as the complementary tool for the award side. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions against other NAICS siblings, but the usage context is strong enough to guide selection.

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