Analyze a NAICS market

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavior: per-code views reject filters, leaderboard requires no naics, and keywords match NAICS titles rather than topics. It doesn't discuss cost, pagination, or limits on aggregate queries, but the added constraint detail exceeds typical.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence followed by a tight bulleted enumeration of views – no wasted prose. The compressed line-wrapping and cramming the find_codes filter spec into one bullet makes it slightly denser than ideal, but nothing is extraneous.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotations cover safety. The description supplies the missing pieces: view semantics, which views need naics, which accept filters, and the full filter vocabulary – everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 carry all parameter meaning and largely does: naics is 6-digit, board takes biggest/least_crowded/most_open, and the find_codes filters keys (keywords, sector, prefix, min_market, max_competitors, set_aside_family with its five enum values, sort_by with its three values) are all spelled out. It even flags the keyword-matching gotcha ('computer', not 'cybersecurity').

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource – 'How big a NAICS market is, who wins it, and how it buys, across every agency' – then enumerates the six views and the exact metrics each returns. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool for agency-scoped queries, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Gives per-view guidance on what each view answers, states that per-code views take no filters, states that leaderboard needs no naics, and names an explicit alternative ('for one agency: search(contracts) with naics and agency'). The when-to-use and how-to-scope conditions are all present.

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