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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: pagination as a browse mode and the conditional presence of cross-industry/consumer/agent audience data ('when available'), which tells the agent not every industry will carry every field.

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 sentences, each load-bearing: output shape first, conditional data second, filtering/pagination mode last. No restatement of the title and no filler.

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 read-only, zero-required-param listing with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers what to expect and how to page. The only material gap is the query's matching semantics, which neither schema nor description resolves.

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 67%: limit and offset are documented in the schema, while query has only min/max length constraints. The description partially compensates by calling query an optional directory filter, but it never says what the query matches on (name, slug, alias?), which is the one thing an agent most needs to formulate a valid query.

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 and resource ('lists supported industries') and enumerates the returned fields (IDs/slugs, names, descriptions, aliases), so the agent knows exactly what this produces. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, but no sibling is a directory lister, so the distinction is clear from the description alone.

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 last sentence gives clear operational context: use an optional query to filter, or omit it and browse with pagination. That is real when-to-use guidance, though it never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition.

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