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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the evidence basis (SAM.gov notice titles, federal contract descriptions) and that each code comes with its SBA size standard. It stops short of saying how many codes are returned or how they are ranked.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with an arrow structure that puts input before output; the parenthetical is dense but every clause carries information. Slightly long for what it says, but no 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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining what comes back: codes plus size standards. Only the result count and ordering are left unspecified, which is a minor gap for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents the plain-language input with two concrete examples. The description's 'work in plain words' phrasing restates the schema without adding format, length, or granularity guidance.

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 transformation: plain-language work description -> NAICS codes, plus the SBA size standard. It implicitly separates itself from browse_codes/search_codes by grounding results in buyer usage, but never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 input pattern ('Describe the work in plain words') implies when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer search_codes, browse_codes, or size_standard for adjacent needs.

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