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

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a read-only listing and names the returned fields, but it does not disclose ordering, exhaustiveness, pagination, or failure behavior; this is acceptable for a simple list but not fully transparent.

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 structured in short functional segments: purpose, return fields, and usage. The keyword block is somewhat redundant but serves multilingual matching, and the actionable guidance is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter taxonomy list, the description covers purpose, output fields, and integration with search_companies. It is complete enough to invoke correctly; a small gap is the lack of explicit statement about whether the list is exhaustive or localized.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics for the description to supplement. The description adds contextual meaning by explaining how the tool's output (id/name/slug) is meant to feed into search_companies, which is more than the empty schema provides.

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 opens with a precise verb and object: 'Listează industriile... disponibile pe Companero' and specifies the returned fields (id, nume, slug). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling search tools by framing it as a CAEN/NACE taxonomy lookup rather than a company search.

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 explicitly states when to use it: when the user wants companies from a sector, and gives concrete examples ('firme din IT', 'construcții'). It also names the downstream alternative, search_companies, explains how to pass the id into the `industry` parameter, and notes the id step is optional because search_companies accepts names directly.

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