usas_naics_hierarchy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only operation returning relationships and counts, which is adequate. However, it lacks details on data freshness, authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 long and front-loads the main action and output. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core purpose, the second specifies returned data, and the third provides a usage example. No redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity (hierarchy traversal with counts and one optional parameter), the description covers the main functionality and return values adequately. It includes a usage example but does not mention hierarchal depth limits or pagination, which are minor gaps.

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 well-described parameter. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose ('Filter to a specific NAICS code subtree') but does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema description, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 verb 'Navigate' and the resource 'NAICS hierarchy', specifying the hierarchical levels (2-digit → 4-digit → 6-digit) and the return type (parent/child relationships + active-contract count). It also provides an example usage ('what's under NAICS 541'), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings 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 explicitly says to 'Use to explore market scope' and provides a concrete example, giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, though the sibling set implies other NAICS tools for different tasks.

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