Search NACE Industry Codes

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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies what each hit contains (Norwegian and English labels, company counts), the data source (official catalogue SSB/BRREG), and refresh frequency (daily). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's output and reliability.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and output details. Every sentence earns its place – no filler, redundant phrasing, or repetition of schema information. It is concise yet packed with actionable information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists, annotations provided), the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, when-to-use, three usage modes, return elements, data source, and update cycle. The only unmentioned aspect is pagination or limit behavior, but the output schema likely covers return structure, so no critical gaps remain.

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 coverage is 75% (q, eu, parent have descriptions; limit does not). The description reinforces and enriches parameter meaning by explaining q as free-text search with examples, eu as a converter to Norwegian 5-digit sub-codes, and parent as a hierarchy drill-down with examples. It does not mention limit, but that parameter is self-explanatory, so the added value over the schema is solid, though not exhaustive.

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 purpose: 'Search and browse the Norwegian NACE industry-code catalogue.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly positioning it as a precursor to subscribe_nace and list_companies_in_nace, making its role 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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to resolve the exact code before calling subscribe_nace (industry monitoring) or list_companies_in_nace.' It also details three distinct usage modes (q, parent, eu) with examples, giving clear direction on how to invoke the tool for different scenarios.

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