Get NAICS Competition

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the data source (whole FPDS prime-award market), time window (last 12 months), 404 behavior when no activity exists, and that it is factual and never scored. These are meaningful behavioral details not present in 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, uses a scannable metric list, then handles sibling distinction, parameter format, and behavior. Every sentence earns its place; the length is justified by the tool's analytical richness.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not spell out return values; it covers data scope, temporal window, 404 error, parameter format, and sibling tool boundaries. This is complete for a single-parameter read-only tool.

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?

Input schema only says 'code' with no description; the description compensates by specifying '2-6 digit NAICS code'. It adds format and meaning, though it could offer more detail such as formatting examples or whether leading zeros are needed.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get how contested a NAICS market is') and enumerates concrete metrics. It explicitly differentiates itself from get_naics_market, get_naics_simplified_acquisition, and get_naics_positioning, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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?

States the intended workflow ('Market Research / Capture tool ... before committing a capture cycle') and names alternatives for size/concentration, small-buy bands, and language. This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-to-choose-another-tool guidance.

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