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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the content returned (metadata, ranked sample, total) and the `next` affordance that lists sub-resources and the exact tool call to retrieve each. It also mentions that view=full returns the whole record. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but this is implied for a 'get' tool. It lacks details on edge cases or error handling, but the core behavior is transparent enough for correct invocation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then usage guidance. Every clause earns its place: no fluff, no repetition of schema details already present. It is concise and efficiently structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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-resource fetcher with no output schema, the description conveys the return structure (metadata, ranked sample, total, `next` block) and how to get more (view=full or other tools). It also advises using get_api/get_provider for one entity, which is helpful context. While it doesn't enumerate fields, an agent can infer the standard industry entity shape. The coverage is sufficient for correct use, though a few more specifics about the 'next' block content would round it out.

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 80% (slug lacks a description), so the schema already documents view, limit, context, and include_next. The description adds marginal value by mentioning view=full and include_next pass-through, but it does not explain slug or add deeper semantics beyond the schema. With 80% coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't significantly compensate for the missing slug description but doesn't need to, as slug is a standard identifier.

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 clearly states the tool returns one industry's metadata plus a top sample of member providers, ranked, with total. It differentiates from find_providers explicitly, noting that the latter returns the full list, and mentions the view=full parameter for the whole record. This gives a specific verb, resource, and distinguishes it from a relevant 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use find_providers?industry=slug for the full list, or view=full here', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative. It also explains how to omit the `next` block with include_next=false, which is actionable usage direction. No other exclusions are needed given the tool's narrow scope.

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