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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: equal issuer weights, latest stored ratios, positive multiples only, sample size/exclusion/date outputs, dividend yield unavailability, and no live fetch. It also discloses the SIC-vs-GICS distinction, which prevents misclassification.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed only by methodology, caveats, and parameter semantics. Each sentence contributes distinct information with no filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, methodology, output contents, caveats, and both parameters. With an output schema present and only two optional parameters, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates: it explains sic as a four-digit SIC code at industry level and max_price_age_days as 'seven calendar days' accepting '0–365'. This is meaningful semantic guidance beyond the schema's type/default fields.

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: 'Median valuation ratios for every SEC SIC industry, or one four-digit SIC code.' It also distinguishes itself from GICS-based classifications, making it clear this is the SIC industry-valuation tool even among siblings like get_valuation.

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 states the exact scope (all SEC SIC industries or a single SIC code) and key constraints such as 'Default price freshness is seven calendar days' and 'No live market-wide fetch.' It does not explicitly name when to prefer an alternative, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when this tool applies.

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