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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses return format (official title and matched words, best match first), failure behavior (returns nothing rather than inventing a code when too short or outside the covered set), and a compliance guardrail (never apply without person confirmation). This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone cannot provide.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return format, failure mode, and compliance guardrail. The description is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 suggestion tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, result content, failure mode, and a critical safety rule. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented limit parameter, and it does not mention the similar formation_suggest_naics_codes sibling.

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 description adds plain-language semantics to businessDescription by framing it as a description of what a business does, but it never explains the optional limit parameter. With only 50% schema coverage and no limit description in the schema, an agent must infer that limit caps the number of candidates, so the compensation is partial.

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: 'Suggest NAICS industry classification codes from a plain-language description of what a business does.' It also names the concrete output (candidate codes with official title and matched words), and the banking compliance warning distinguishes it from similar formation/suggestion tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: converting a plain-language business description into NAICS candidates, with a banking compliance framing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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