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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It lacks any details about response format (e.g., array of strings), ordering, pagination, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a zero-parameter tool, this is a notable gap.

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 concise at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. The only redundancy is the phrase 'using the FMP Available Industries API,' which is somewhat repetitive given the tool name, but it does not significantly detract.

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 simple, zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description gives a basic understanding but omits return value details. Since there are no annotations or output schema, mentioning the expected response structure would have made it more complete.

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 no parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific details since none exist. The schema's 100% coverage (vacuous) means no information is missing.

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's function: accessing a list of industries where stock symbols are available. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getAvailableSectors or getAvailableCountries by focusing specifically on industries. However, it could be more explicit about the output being a simple list of industry names.

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 provides context on when to use this tool, mentioning it helps filter and categorize companies by industry for focused research. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use getAvailableSectors for sectors), but the usage context is clear enough.

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