nace_browse

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden and excellently discloses key behaviors: results are limited to 'direct children' (non-recursive), return fields are restricted to 'code + label only', and results are capped at 'Max 50'. These are critical runtime traits an agent needs to know.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence delivers distinct information: functionality, response scope, optional behavior, and result limit. No fluff or repetition.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers all necessary context: what is returned (code+label), how to get top-level sections, the result cap, and the non-recursive nature. An agent has enough information to invoke correctly and interpret results.

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% since the parameter's description ('Parent NACE code. Omit to list top-level sections.') already explains core semantics. The tool description adds the 'direct children' detail, but that is more about output behavior than parameter syntax, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Returns direct children of a NACE code', with a specific scope ('code + label only'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nace_get (single item), nace_search (query matching), and nace_suggest (autocomplete) by explicitly framing it as a tree-browsing operation.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Omit parent_code to get all 22 top-level sections' and 'Max 50 results' gives a constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this tool over siblings, leaving some room for the agent to infer the browse-vs-search/get distinction.

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