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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description is not required to restate them. It adds meaningful behavioral scope by noting that the tool does not list sectors or their groups. Return format is handled by the output schema.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose and the two modes are front-loaded, followed by a useful limitation.

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 simple two-parameter lookup tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, both usage modes, and a key scope limitation. Minor parameter details are missing, but the structured fields fill most of the remaining gaps.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain both parameters: query searches by name with the example 'banks', and parent browses below a parent code. It omits defaults, maxLength, and what exactly a parent code is (e.g., an integer GICS code), so compensation is only partial.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'GICS codes for the screener's industries'. It also explains the two lookup modes, name search and parent browsing, making the scope clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives two invocation modes ('search by name' or 'browse below a parent code') and a negative constraint ('Neither lists the sectors and their groups'). However, it does not name an alternative tool for sector/group listing or state when to prefer this over another lookup tool, leaving usage largely implied.

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