nace_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: case-insensitivity, substring matching, full corpus coverage (1,047 entries), a result cap of 10, and the exact fields returned (code, label, level). This goes beyond a basic summary and sets clear expectations, though it does not mention edge cases like empty queries or result ordering.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every phrase is informative: case-insensitive, substring, full scope, result limit, and return fields. There is no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the search behavior, the scope, the limit, and the return structure (code, label, level). Without an output schema, this description fills the necessary gaps for an agent to invoke the tool and understand the response.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'query' parameter by describing it as a 'substring to search for'. The description reinforces this and adds the case-insensitive attribute, but the core parameter semantic is already fully captured in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal supplementary meaning.

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 verb 'search' with specific technical characteristics ('case-insensitive substring search'), the resource ('NACE Rev. 2.1 activity labels'), and the scope ('all 1,047'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nace_get, nace_browse, and nace_suggest by clarifying it is a flexible search rather than a targeted lookup or hierarchical navigation.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when you need to find activities by partial label text. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or provide exclusion criteria (e.g., 'for exact codes use nace_get'). The usage is implied by the term 'search' and the return of matches, but the lack of direct sibling comparisons leaves guidance implicit.

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