explore_sba_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe the output shape (canonical names with display name, category, unit, update cadence) and mentions the public-domain source, which adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, how the limit parameter behaves, or potential pagination/rate-limit behaviors, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then param details, then output summary, sibling pointer, and source attribution. Every sentence provides distinct, useful information with no filler or redundancy. It is exemplary in both length and organization.

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 complexity (3 params, output schema present, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose, parameter constraints (except limit), output contents, and the sibling relationship. The output schema supplies structured return details, so the description need not do that. The main gap is the undocumented limit parameter and lack of explicit pagination notes, but overall it is highly usable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains category (valid values 'volume', 'outcomes', 'characteristics') and query (free text, minimum 2 characters), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions. But it completely omits any explanation of the `limit` parameter, which is one of the three parameters, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Browse the SBA 7(a) metric catalog' and explains what it lets you do ('discover available metrics by category or keyword'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_sba_metric_detail and explore_bls_metrics by scoping to the SBA 7(a) metric catalog, making the tool's niche clear.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'Use get_sba_metric_detail to fetch the full definition for a single metric.' It also provides concrete search constraints (category values, query minimum length), giving clear guidance for invocation. The sibling differentiation is strong and actionable.

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