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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool shows benchmark comparisons by sector/country cohort, which is useful context, but it does not add much beyond the annotations and the basic output description. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 long, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence serves a purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second lists clear use cases. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

With only 2 optional parameters, a fully documented schema, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an AI to select and invoke the tool. It explains the output contents (percentile, mean score, failures) and the use cases. It lacks only explicit alternative guidance, but overall it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters, with enums and descriptions for both 'format' and 'profile'. The description does not add any additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Get industry benchmark data' and enumerates the specific data points returned (percentile, mean score, common failures). It is specific about the resource and scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_domain_rank or get_provider_insights, which limits it to a 4 rather than 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 includes an explicit 'Use when' section listing three concrete scenarios: comparing to industry average, asking about percentiles, or asking about common security failures. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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