Get NAICS Simplified Acquisition

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

Even though annotations already mark this read-only and idempotent, the description adds meaningful beyond-annotation behavior: it is free tier, factual and never scored, returns no pursuit recommendation, and returns 404 when there is no qualifying FPDS activity. These are operational traits an agent needs that are absent from the 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 dense but every element earns its place: outputs are front-loaded, the FAR 13 context is compressed, sibling pairing is one clause, and the param/error/positioning are at the end. No filler.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description fully covers the code format, the time window, the segmenting concept, the 404 behavior, and sibling relationships. Nothing essential is left to inference.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for the single parameter and does supply 'code: 2-6 digit NAICS code', adding format detail beyond the bare string type. It does not give examples or leading-zero guidance, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb-resource pair ('Get the award-value breakdown for a NAICS code') and enumerates concrete outputs: micro/simplified-acquisition/above-SAT counts, offices, distinct-firm and set-aside counts. It also differentiates from siblings by naming get_naics_positioning and get_naics_market and describing their distinct roles.

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 establishes when this tool is the right read ('the SMALL-BUY value-band read' in a FAR Part 13 context) and explicitly tells the agent to pair it with get_naics_positioning and get_naics_market for the same code. It also states the factual/no-recommendation stance and the 404 condition, leaving little ambiguity about use context.

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