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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it cites the authoritative source (13 CFR 121.201 eCFR table) and enumerates what comes back — thresholds in receipts or employees, exceptions, footnotes, and the programs that rely on them.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the regulatory source, then a compact input-to-output mapping. The telegraphic arrow notation is efficient but slightly terse, reading more like a fragment than guidance.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so — thresholds, exceptions, footnotes, programs. The only unaddressed case is ambiguity resolution (e.g., whether industry words can return multiple matches), which 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 coverage is 100% and the single `query` parameter already documents all three accepted forms with examples. The description restates the same input forms (NAICS code, prefix, industry words) and adds only the output units, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema's own documentation.

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 names the specific resource (SBA small business size standards, 13 CFR 121.201) and states the exact outputs: a receipts ($ millions) or employee threshold plus exceptions, footnotes and the programs that use them. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like naics_finder or browse_codes, so an agent must infer the split from the domain framing alone.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus naics_finder/search_codes, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use (look up a size threshold for a code or industry) is only implied by the input formats listed.

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