industry-primers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the data source (real SEC 10-K figures, not modeled/estimated) and that it's a one-time report. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't mention any limitations or error cases, which is minor for such a simple retrieval tool.

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 no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and key content, and the second adds the use case. All information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what the tool returns (details and pricing), what the report contains (real figures, industry analysis), and when to use it (investment research needing sourced writeups). No additional context is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema already covers everything (100% coverage vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding irrelevant parameter details.

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 retrieves details and pricing for a specific report (Edge Thirteen's Industry Primer), and explains what the report contains (real SEC 10-K figures, industry analysis). It uses a specific verb and resource, and even mentions the intended use case, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 frames when the tool is useful: for investment research needing a sourced industry-level writeup rather than an LLM-generated summary. While there are no sibling tools to differentiate against, this provides a clear usage context. It doesn't list exclusions, but for a parameterless tool with no alternatives, this is adequate.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the data source (company 10-K via SEC EDGAR XBRL API), the access requirements ('free, no key'), and exactly what the tool does not include (FY2023-FY2024 comparatives, exact tag/accession sourcing, written analysis). This provides a complete behavioral picture for a read-only data retrieval tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and uses only three sentences, each earning its place: content, limitations vs the paid report, and access requirements. There is no filler 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what data is returned, the source, the upstream API, pricing/authentication, and the boundary between free and paid content. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter meanings to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description's explicit field list compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 ('Get the free FY2025 preview table from Edge Thirteen's current Industry Primer') and lists the exact columns returned, so an agent knows precisely what this tool produces. It clearly differentiates the free table from the paid report, but it never names sibling get_industry_primer_info, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 clearly frames when this tool is appropriate: it returns the free preview table, while the paid report adds comparatives, exact XBRL sourcing, and analysis. It also notes 'Free, no key,' removing authentication as a barrier. It does not explicitly name get_industry_primer_info as an alternative, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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