Compliance Batch Alignment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is 'Pure, local, no PII' and provides an informational output, not a compliance determination. It also names the output components. It does not cover invalid input handling, but for a read-only tool this is reasonable.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core function ('Given a NAICS code and a business vertical, return whether...'), and includes clarifying parentheticals ('Bonis known-commerce', 'Information, not a compliance determination'). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: inputs, output components, and important caveats (local, no PII, informational only). It does not detail return format or edge cases, but given the low complexity and full schema coverage, this is sufficient.

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 descriptions already fully cover both parameters ('NAICS code (digits)' and 'The stated business vertical/industry'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond restating the inputs, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's operation: given a NAICS code and vertical, it returns alignment status, the mapped description, and an alignment band. This is a specific verb+resource pairing, though there are no siblings to differentiate from, and the phrase 'that description' is slightly ambiguous.

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 implies appropriate usage: use for informational alignment checks when you have a NAICS code and vertical. It explicitly states it is 'not a compliance determination,' giving a clear exclusion. No alternatives are mentioned, but the context is sufficient for this simple tool.

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