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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description's added detail (result key name, distinctness, downstream linkage) is largely duplicated by the output schema. No edge-case or failure behavior (e.g., unknown sector values) is disclosed, but the annotation bar makes this adequate.

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, front-loaded with the action and following with the return linkage; nothing is padded. The return-detail sentence is partly redundant with the output schema, which keeps it from being flawless.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and a readOnlyHint, the definition covers what the tool does and how its output chains into list_realtime_events. Only the upstream call ordering (list_options first) is left implicit.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that sectors are drawn from list_options("sectors"). The description only echoes the "one or more sectors" cardinality and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list sub-industries) scoped to "one or more sectors", so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, list_options, which is where sectors themselves come from, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 the downstream purpose of the result (narrowing list_realtime_events(industry=[...])) and the schema notes sectors come from list_options("sectors"), which implies the workflow. However there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or statement of which tool to call first versus this one.

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