look_up_set_aside

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Explain' makes it clear this is a read-only lookup, and the official-code list defines the accepted domain. However, it does not disclose behavior for unknown codes, whether labels are accepted, or whether the ellipsis means the list is non-exhaustive.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action before listing valid codes. It contains no filler, and the code list is directly useful for callers. The ellipsis is mildly vague but does not make the description bloated.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, this is minimally adequate: an agent can infer the call shape and likely value domain. It is incomplete because it lacks usage guidance, validation behavior, sample labels, and clarification that the visible code list is not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by enumerating accepted code values and including '...' to suggest more exist. It does not explain what a 'label' means, case sensitivity, or input formatting, leaving the sole parameter partly underspecified.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Explain a SAM.gov set-aside' with an explicit list of official codes. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by resource (set-aside codes vs NAICS, opportunities, etc.), though it does not explicitly name any sibling to differentiate from.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as look_up_naics or opportunity_type. The description implies a lookup use case, but it never states when this tool is the right choice or when a sibling would be better.

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