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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the underlying GET path; it says nothing about ordering, whether the list is exhaustive, or pagination behavior for large directories.

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 compact clauses with no filler: purpose first, then filter context, then the endpoint. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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 no output schema, the description should say what a 'code' looks like (a bare string vs. an object with id/label) and whether results are paginated, since that determines how the agent feeds the values into an industryCode filter. It is otherwise adequate for a one-parameter lookup.

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?

The single parameter has an enum and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description restates the People/Company scope but adds no detail on how the choice affects the returned code set beyond what the enum conveys.

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 ('List the industry codes') scoped to People or Company memberships, and clarifies the role as the source of values for an industryCode filter, which separates it from the membership-listing siblings. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 parenthetical 'the values for an industryCode filter' gives a concrete usage context: call this before filtering memberships by industry. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the intended call site is unambiguous for such a narrow lookup tool.

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