check_size_standard

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 indicates the tool performs a qualification check, which implies a read-only operation without side effects, but it doesn't specify details like response format, error handling, or data sources (e.g., SBA database). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check if a business qualifies as small') and includes essential context ('under SBA standards for a specific NAICS code'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output (e.g., returns a boolean or qualification status), prerequisites, or limitations (e.g., currency or time validity of standards). This leaves the agent with gaps in fully understanding the tool's context and usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (naicsCode, annualRevenue, employeeCount) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that NAICS code is central to the check, which aligns with the schema's required parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('business qualifies as small under SBA standards'), and it distinguishes from siblings by specifying the NAICS code requirement, unlike tools like 'get_size_standards' which likely retrieve standards data rather than perform qualification checks.

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 usage context by specifying 'for a specific NAICS code,' which helps differentiate it from siblings like 'search_sbir_firms' that may not involve SBA standards. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct alternatives, such as whether 'get_size_standards' should be used for reference instead.

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