nace_suggest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the internal process (tokenizes, scores by matched terms) and the output behavior (returns top 5 with a reason), which is transparent about how results are generated. It does not detail edge cases like zero matches or partial matches, but the provided context is sufficient for a simple read-like tool.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the core function, the second details the method, and the third gives the use case. No fluff, no unnecessary repetition, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it works, and when to use it. It mentions the output shape (top 5 with reason) which is sufficient. Missing only minor details like behavior with ambiguous/empty input, but overall it is complete for its complexity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'activity_description', already describing it as a free-text description. The tool description merely echoes 'free-text activity description' without adding new semantics, so it provides no value beyond the schema. 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 uses a specific verb ('Fuzzy-match') and resource ('free-text activity description to NACE Rev. 2.1 codes'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like nace_search (likely exact/match-oriented) and nace_browse (hierarchical). It states the output (top 5 candidates with reason), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Ideal for AI agents classifying business activities' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use nace_search for exact code lookup'), so it lacks the direct comparison that would earn a 5.

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