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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds some behavioral context by mentioning sortability by provider/API count, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, or what the returned items look like. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and a key capability without waste. However, it is so terse that it omits useful operational details, so it falls short of a perfect score for structure.

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?

With five parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, this description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It does not explain what q does, how sorting works, whether results are paginated, or what the response structure is. The description covers only the basic browsing idea.

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 description coverage is only 20%, and most parameters (q, page, sort, limit) lack descriptions in the schema. The description only hints at sorting by provider/API count, which partially explains the sort parameter, but it does not clarify q search semantics, pagination, limits, or valid sort values. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('industry verticals'), and adds a meaningful capability ('sort by provider/API count'). It clearly indicates this is a list/browse tool rather than a detail or analytics tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar sibling tools like insights_industries or get_industry_leaders.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use find_industries versus alternatives such as get_industry, get_industry_leaders, or insights_industries. The description implies use for browsing and sorting, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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