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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of valid company industries, but does not describe ordering, whether the list is exhaustive, or any authentication requirements. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but minimal.

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 two sentences, with the purpose stated immediately and the usage guidance in the second. No filler or redundant language.

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 description is sufficient for a zero-parameter, no-annotation tool. It explains the purpose and how to consume the result. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the phrase 'list of valid company industries,' which implies an array. However, it could optionally mention the data type.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially covered. The description correctly focuses on the output usage rather than parameters, earning the baseline score for zero-param tools.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of valid company industries.' It also names the three consuming tools (search_jobs, create_job_hunt, update_job_hunt), which clarifies its role as a reference-data provider and differentiates it from sibling getters like get_currencies.

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 explicitly instructs to use these values for the 'industries' filter in three named tools, making the usage context clear. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but none are needed for this reference list.

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