Vendor procurement codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context about the scope of the data, such as the targeted government portals and the primary NAICS code. It does not contradict the annotations, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-format details.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the resource, the second gives usage timing, and the third provides useful content details. The description is front-loaded with the action and object.

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 read-only list operation with one optional parameter, an output schema, and robust annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and data content. No material information an agent would need to call it correctly 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?

The single optional parameter is fully documented by the schema with an enum and default description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds general context about the code systems but does not add new parameter-level semantics 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 begins with a specific action and object: 'List Kolmo's vendor procurement codes,' and disambiguates the resource by naming the code systems (NAICS, NIGP, UNSPSC). It is clearly distinct from sibling list tools like list_commercial_services and list_projects.

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 states when to use it: 'when vetting Kolmo for gov bids or setting up Kolmo as a vendor.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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