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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and closed-corpus scope are covered. The description adds real value beyond that: what each match contains (slug, category, page URL) and that an empty query enumerates the whole corpus. It omits pagination/result-count behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the empty-query rule. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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 single-optional-param, read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and the empty-query behavior, which is most of what an agent needs. Only minor gaps remain (result limits/pagination, no explicit sibling exclusion) given the low complexity.

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 query parameter is well documented there, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantics the schema lacks: the empty-string behavior ('list every industry') and that matching is against name or description, making the parameter's intent clearer.

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 ('Find') plus resource ('industries') and scopes it to Vocenya's AI receptionist pages, with concrete examples ('dentist', 'plumber', 'auto repair'). The return contract (slug, category, page URL) and the link to get_industry clearly separate it from the sibling that fetches a single industry.

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?

Explicitly covers the empty-query case ('Leave the query empty to list every industry') and hints at the follow-up flow by naming get_industry as the consumer of the returned slug. It does not state when to prefer search_articles or get_industry instead, so no full when-not guidance.

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