usas_autocomplete_naics

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

The 'ANTI-HALLUCINATION GUARD' phrase reveals a key behavioral trait (no inventing codes). However, with no annotations, the description should detail more about return behavior or error handling, which is missing.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the guard statement adds critical context without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should hint at the return format (e.g., list of codes with descriptions). It only shows one input-output example, leaving the full response structure unclear. Adequate for a simple tool but not complete.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It implies 'searchText' is free-text describing a NAICS theme but does not describe the 'limit' parameter or provide any schema-level detail beyond the example.

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 autocompletes NAICS codes from free-text, with an example. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like usas_naics_hierarchy, but the purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use ('when the user mentions a NAICS theme but no specific code') with an example. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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