usas_naics_hierarchy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return values (parent/child relationships + active contract count) and implies a read-only query. No destructive behavior is mentioned, which is appropriate for a navigation tool. Could mention rate limits but not essential.

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 immediate value: purpose, result, and example. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the main 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 simple hierarchy tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It explains what is returned and gives a practical example. Could slightly elaborate on the return format, but sufficient.

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 100% with a single parameter (naicsFilter) described adequately in the schema. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the tool navigates the NAICS hierarchy (2-digit to 6-digit) and returns parent/child relationships with contract counts. An example ('what's under NAICS 541') makes the purpose concrete and distinguishes it from sibling tools like usas_autocomplete_naics.

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 implies usage for hierarchy exploration and provides an example, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different tasks like searching awards. However, the context is clear enough.

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