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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description adds two real facts beyond that: results are a curated 'Top' subset rather than exhaustive, and each entry carries links. It stops short of saying how many items, how ranked, or what happens for an unknown slug.

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 telegraphic sentence with zero filler, and the resource and scope come first. It is slightly clipped ('with links') and could name the sibling it replaces without growing much, but nothing is wasted.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read tool with full annotations and a fully described slug, and the output hint ('with links') covers the return shape reasonably. Still missing is whether results are exhaustive or capped and how this differs from search_use_cases, which an agent needs to pick 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the slug pattern/description already document the area, sub-industry, and area/sub-industry forms. The description's 'one industry or sub-industry' mirrors the schema rather than adding syntax or examples, 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?

Names the resource (AI use cases) and the scoping key (one industry or sub-industry), plus a return detail (links). It is clearly distinct from get_use_case and list_industries in granularity, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with search_use_cases, which is the nearest sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for one industry or sub-industry' — a direct lookup by slug. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over search_use_cases or list_industries, and no prerequisite or fallback guidance, so the agent must infer the routing.

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