usas_naics_hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it details the response structure (parent, hierarchy), active-contract count per code, and edge cases (nonexistent code returns parent:null, found:false). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear flow from purpose to behavior to edge cases to example. It is slightly dense but efficient, earning a 4 for being informative 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 single parameter and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers all input scenarios and edge cases. While it implicitly describes the response structure, it could explicitly mention the fields in hierarchy objects (code, title, contractCount, hasChildren) for full completeness.

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 has one parameter with 100% description coverage. The description adds significant meaning: it explains how the parameter affects behavior (no filter vs. filter), and what the response contains for each case. This goes well beyond the schema description.

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: navigate the NAICS hierarchy (2→4→6 digit) with active-contract counts per code. It distinguishes from sibling tools like usas_autocomplete_naics by specifying hierarchy navigation and contract counts.

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 explains when to use the tool: to explore market scope, e.g., what's under NAICS 54. It provides precise usage guidance: no filter returns top-level sectors; with filter returns parent and direct children; includes drill-down instructions for hasChildren:true.

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