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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short of it. It claims output systems and mentions SBA size standards, but says nothing about whether codes are deterministic or model-inferred, confidence/ambiguity handling, error behavior, or any auth/rate-limit constraints for something called "API #08."

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and lists the outputs in order of specificity; every clause carries information. The "API #08:" prefix is minor catalog numbering noise but costs little.

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 and no annotations, the description tells the agent what code systems come back and that SBA size standards are included, which is useful. It still leaves the return shape, ranking of primary vs secondary codes, and the max_secondary_codes parameter unexplained for a 3-parameter 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 only 33%, so the description has to compensate. It partially does by enumerating the text inputs that correspond to context_type's enum values and description_text, but max_secondary_codes (and the whole notion of secondary codes in the output) is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving one parameter and a key output behavior opaque.

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 ("Map") plus the exact resources produced: 6-digit NAICS, 4-digit SIC, Federal PSC, and State NIGP/UNSPSC codes, and names the accepted inputs (product description, SOW, company profile). No sibling tool does code classification, so it is immediately distinguishable from the contract/RFP-oriented siblings.

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 implied by the accepted input types ("any product description, SOW, or company profile") and the parenthetical "for KYB/FinTech" hints at a use case for SIC. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools for adjacent tasks.

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