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

The annotations only indicate openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lot of the transparency burden. It clearly discloses that the tool 'changes nothing' and 'Returns SUGGESTIONS ONLY,' and it adds a useful domain caveat that NAICS codes are not always six digits. 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?

Three sentences deliver purpose, non-mutating behavior, the human-confirmation workflow, and a domain caveat. Every clause contributes; nothing is repetitive or filler.

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?

There is an output schema present, so return shape does not need explaining by hand. For a suggestion/read-only tool, the description covers what it does, who must make the final decision, and one important interpretation trait. It could mention maxResults default/behavior but that is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 67% and only maxResults lacks a schema description, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms businessDescription is the input source but does not explain maxResults semantics, formationId semantics, or how optional parameters behave, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb–resource pair: it "Ranks candidate 2022 NAICS industry codes for a formation from its business description." It also clarifies the tool is suggestion-only, which distinguishes it from the sibling formation_confirm_naics_code without needing to open either schema.

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 gives explicit operational guidance: "always show the shortlist and have the person pick one," which is a clear when-to-invoke and when-to-defer. It stops short of explicitly naming the confirmation sibling or saying 'do not use this to finalize NAICS selection,' so it loses one point for not being fully explicit about alternatives.

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