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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose something structural, namely that the response is recursive with child categories, which is useful. It says nothing about permissions, response shape, or whether the tree can be deep/truncated, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core capability stated first and the parameter-sourcing hint second. Nothing redundant.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter origin adequately. The main residual gap is return-shape detail (how nodes/children are structured), which is not covered elsewhere.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a small amount of meaning by tying industry_counter_id back to the get_industries_rank output and constraining it to the same market, which is why it sits at the baseline rather than higher.

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 names a specific verb (get) and resource (an industry's top-level classification plus recursive child categories), which distinguishes it from flat-list siblings like get_industries_rank. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from adjacent tools such as get_industry_distribution or get_industry_peers.

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?

It gives a concrete chaining directive: use industry_counter_id from get_industries_rank for the same market, which tells the agent the prerequisite call. It does not state when to prefer this tool over related sibling tools (distribution, peers), so no exclusion guidance.

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