look_up_naics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an important limitation: only curated 2-digit sectors are returned, not full NAICS detail. However, it does not describe return format, matching behavior, or whether multiple sectors may be returned, which leaves some uncertainty for an agent.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the important curated-sector caveat is included parenthetically without disrupting clarity.

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?

The tool is simple, with one optional-looking parameter and no output schema, so the description carries responsibility for explaining both input and output. It explains the input and high-level output, and adds a scope limitation. It still lacks detail about the response structure and how results should be interpreted, but it is minimally sufficient for a simple lookup.

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 schema provides no description for the single 'query' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does indicate that the query should be a goods/services description, which adds meaning beyond the schema. But it does not clarify formatting, requiredness, or expected length, and the schema shows a default empty string, which is ambiguous.

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 ('Map') and identifies both the input (goods/services description) and the output (NAICS sectors). The note about curated 2-digit sectors adds useful scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like look_up_set_aside, though the focus on NAICS sectors makes it reasonably distinct.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent has a goods/services description and needs related NAICS sectors. It does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, exclusions, or mention of the curated 2-digit scope as a reason to prefer other tools for more granular NAICS lookups.

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