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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations cannot: what 'implemented', 'planned', and 'placeholder' mean in this dataset, which shapes how an agent interprets results.

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 the use case front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is compact to the point of assuming the reader knows these terms attach to returned sector entries.

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 one optional enum parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision (when to call) and the interpretation of returned status values. Missing only the axis/result-shape linkage, which is minor for a single-parameter listing tool.

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 100%, so the single optional enum parameter is documented in structured data and the baseline is 3. The description does not mention the axis parameter or explain the esrs/sics distinction, and the schema's own enum text ('esrs (reporting groups) or sics (implementations)') stays terse despite the discussion of 'essential' status meaning.

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 frames the tool as answering 'which industries Open Footprint covers' and 'whether a sector has a reference implementation,' which identifies the resource and scope clearly. The verb (list/enumerate) is only implied, and the singular sibling ofp_sector is never named, so an agent must infer the plural/singular split.

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?

It gives explicit triggering conditions: a user asking about industry coverage or whether a sector is implemented. It stops short of exclusions or pointing to ofp_sector for detail on a single sector, which is the obvious alternative an agent would otherwise guess between.

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