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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states only the basic action ('Access a complete list') and the use case, without detailing response format, pagination, authentication requirements, or any potential limitations. The term 'complete list' is the sole extra behavioral claim, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 two sentences, with the core function stated upfront and the second sentence adding relevant context about sector categorization and analysis. No unnecessary words or details.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate but does not specify the response structure (e.g., an array of sector names) or whether the list is paginated. It leaves some ambiguity about what the agent should expect from the call.

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 the input schema is empty. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific details, which is acceptable because there are no parameters to explain.

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 accesses a complete list of industry sectors via the FMP Available Sectors API and explains its purpose in categorizing/filtering companies. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like getAvailableIndustries, the resource and action are unambiguous.

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 for when to use the tool (for sector-based categorization and filtering of companies), but it does not offer explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention specific alternative tools. This is enough to understand the intended use case but lacks exclusions.

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