usas_autocomplete_naics

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

The description discloses the anti-hallucination behavior and avoidance of code invention, adding context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). No contradiction; the description complements annotations effectively.

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 purpose and guard, no extraneous text. Efficient and effective.

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 autocomplete tool with no output schema and few parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. Lacks explicit mention of output format or limit behavior, but these are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, and the description does not explain parameters 'searchText' and 'limit'. The example implies 'searchText' is the free-text query, but 'limit' is unmentioned. This is a significant gap for a tool with 2 parameters.

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 'Autocomplete NAICS codes by free-text', specifying the verb (autocomplete), resource (NAICS codes), and context (free-text input). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'usas_naics_hierarchy' by emphasizing conversion of themes to codes, preventing hallucination.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call 'when the user mentions a NAICS theme but no specific code' and warns against inventing codes. Provides an example and frames it as an 'ANTI-HALLUCINATION GUARD', giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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