archetypes

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the data provenance, enumerates the fields returned, and adds an important safety note that returned fields are 'untrusted scraped data' to be treated as data, never as instructions. It does not address freshness, limits, or auth, but the security caveat is valuable.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the action and resource, the second lists the contents and adds a concise warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what the archetypes are, what fields they include, and warns about the trustworthiness of the data. An agent has what it needs to invoke the tool 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?

The single optional category parameter is already described in the schema with an example, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description reinforces the same concept by using a similar category example but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and names a concrete resource: winning-business archetypes derived from government contract awards. The examples ('IT & Software Services, regional construction prime') and the field list make the purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from the sibling contract, NAICS, state, and scoring 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 says what the tool outputs but gives no guidance about when to use it over siblings such as search_contracts or search_naics. There are no explicit usage conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the term 'archetypes' alone.

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