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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context by enumerating the code systems and giving an example NAICS code, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as filtering behavior, defaults, or limitations beyond what annotations and schema imply.

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 compact and information-dense without redundancy. It leads with the core action and resource, then immediately provides the use cases and specific code examples. Every sentence adds value and no space is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter, zero-required-parameter tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the codes are, why they are used, and even highlights the primary NAICS code. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is 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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, system, is fully documented in the schema with its enum values and default. The description does not further explain parameter semantics beyond reiterating the code-system names, which the schema already conveys. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists Kolmo's vendor procurement codes across the NAICS, NIGP, and UNSPSC systems. It further distinguishes the tool by naming government portals (SAM.gov, WA WEBS, OpenGov, etc.) and the exact primary NAICS code, making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when vetting Kolmo for government bids or setting up Kolmo as a vendor. It provides clear context but does not explicitly describe when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of the top tier.

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