Get NAICS Positioning

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond these: the 24-month SAM opportunity window, the 'Free tier' note, and the specific 404 error when there is no activity for the code. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 organized into four purposeful blocks: what data is returned, the use case and sibling pairing, the parameter spec, and the error condition. Every sentence carries information, and the core function is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, this is complete: data contents, time window, data source, use case, companion tool, parameter format, pricing, and error behavior are all covered. Safety is already handled by annotations, and an output schema exists to cover return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the '2-6 digit NAICS code' format constraint, which is the key semantic not present in the schema. It stops short of examples or invalid-input behavior, but for a single parameter this is strong compensation.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the language and set-aside makeup for a NAICS code's SOLICITATION side') and enumerates exactly what is returned: phrase vocabulary, set-aside share, and top soliciting agencies. It also differentiates from the nearest sibling, get_naics_market, by explicitly contrasting the solicitation side with the award side.

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 gives an explicit use case ('This is what to put in a SAM/DSBS profile or capability statement so contracting officers find you') and names the companion tool with the condition for using it ('Pair with get_naics_market for the award side'). This routes the agent to the correct alternative without inference.

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