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 value beyond that by disclosing the return content (industry slugs) and the country coverage (US, Canada, Australia), which tells the agent what data exists before calling.

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?

A single sentence with the payload described first and the call condition last — front-loaded and free of filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still tells the agent what comes back (industries plus slugs plus countries) and how to use it downstream. For a zero-parameter lookup with full annotation coverage, nothing needed is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the response shape, which is the useful information for a no-arg tool.

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 every industry (trade)') and disambiguates the name mismatch between list_trades and 'industries.' It also names the concrete return payload (slug for search_lists) and country scope, so an agent knows exactly what it gets and how it feeds a sibling tool.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger — call it when the user's industry may not match a name directly — which is a real disambiguation cue against going straight to search_lists. It stops short of naming search_lists as the alternative path or stating when not to call, so not a full 5.

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