Get NAICS Leaderboard

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds concrete behavioral details: valid board names, a limit cap of 100, the output shape (each ranked NAICS code's naics_code), and error responses (400 for invalid board, 503 while the index is building). This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 efficiently structured with a front-loaded purpose, labeled parameter bullets, and a brief return/error section. Despite the long list of board values, every sentence and bullet earns its place; there is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: valid board options, limit behavior, output format, downstream usage, and error conditions. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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?

The input schema only defines board as a string and limit as an integer with a default, with no descriptions. The description fully compensates by enumerating all accepted board values and specifying the maximum limit. This adds essential semantic meaning that the schema lacks.

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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') with a clear resource ('curated, ranked NAICS market leaderboards') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool find_naics_codes' 'open filtered search'. An agent can accurately determine what this tool does and how it differs from closely related tools.

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 names the alternative tool (find_naics_codes) and contrasts this tool's fixed set of named rankings with that open filtered search. It also provides downstream guidance: pass the returned naics_code to get_naics_market or other NAICS tools. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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