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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the accepted digit range and notes that parent/child hierarchy is returned only 'if applicable', which is useful, but says nothing about behavior for invalid or non-existent codes.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action and the accepted input range front-loaded; nothing is padded. The second sentence partially restates what the output schema already conveys, which is minor waste but not harmful.

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 lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what the structured fields don't: the digit-length constraint and the hierarchical nature of the result. Only the relationship to autocomplete_naics and error behavior are 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% for the single 'code' parameter, so the description carries the burden and does add the key constraint (2-6 digits). It stops short of explaining what different lengths mean (e.g., 2-digit sector vs 6-digit industry) or the expected string format, leaving the format partly ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (NAICS code details) and bounds the input to 2-6 digits, which is concrete. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling autocomplete_naics, so an agent must infer which one to reach for when it only has a partial name rather than a code.

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?

Usage is only implied: the digit range signals this is for when you already have a code, but the description never says so explicitly or names autocomplete_naics as the alternative for code discovery. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are given.

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