Get NAICS Simplified-Acquisition Breakdown

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses the 404 behavior when no FPDS prime-award activity exists, the time window, the output's factual/not-scored nature, and the explicit absence of a recommendation. This adds substantial behavioral context without contradicting 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-structured: it front-loads the core output, then provides usage context, parameter format, and edge-case behavior. It is longer than strictly necessary, with the FAR legal citation and policy explanation being helpful but not essential for invocation, yet no sentence is wasted.

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?

With a single parameter, annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the remaining needed context: exact data returned, time window, sibling relationship, 404 failure mode, and the tool's advisory limitations. An agent has everything needed to select and call this 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 provides only a required 'code' string with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies 'code: 2-6 digit NAICS code,' giving the format and domain meaning. For a single-parameter tool, this is adequate, though a concrete example or leading-zero note would have made it complete.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it gets the award-value breakdown for a NAICS code over the last 12 months of FPDS prime awards, including counts by award band, offices, distinct firms, and set-asides. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by labeling itself the 'SMALL-BUY value-band read' within the Market Research tool family.

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 positions the tool as the simplified-acquisition band read and names two sibling tools to pair with for related contexts: get_naics_positioning and get_naics_market. It also provides a FAR Part 13 context that clarifies when this band is relevant, giving an agent clear routing guidance.

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