get_size_standards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type (revenue/employee thresholds) and purpose (federal contracting definition), but doesn't mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a lookup vs search operation. The description adds value but lacks operational context.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and input, second sentence specifies output and context. Every word earns its place in this efficiently structured description.

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 2-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and output information but lacks behavioral context (rate limits, auth needs) and doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in operational guidance.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., doesn't clarify the relationship between naicsCode and industry parameters or when to use each). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get SBA small business size standards'), identifies the resource ('by NAICS code'), and specifies the output ('Returns revenue/employee thresholds that define 'small business' for federal contracting'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on size standards rather than SBIR-related data.

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 (federal contracting) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_size_standard' or other SBIR tools. No guidance on parameter selection (NAICS code vs industry keyword) or when to use partial codes.

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