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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention response format, date range defaults, required permissions, or any constraints beyond the parameters. The description only gives a high-level purpose and does not disclose operational behaviors expected for a historical data API.

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, front-loading the core function in the first sentence and expanding on the use case in the second. It contains no filler, though it could be slightly more specific in the second sentence.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but lacks details on return values, date range behavior, or how 'performance data' is defined. It provides a high-level purpose but does not fully cover what the agent should expect when invoking the tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions 'across various stock exchanges' which loosely connects to the exchange parameter, but does not enhance understanding of the parameters or their usage.

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 historical performance data for industries, using a specific verb 'Access' and resource 'Historical Industry Performance API'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getIndustryPerformanceSnapshot by emphasizing 'historical' and 'long-term trends', and notes coverage 'across various stock exchanges'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to 'Track long-term trends' and 'analyze how different industries have evolved over time'. This implies a use case distinct from snapshot or current data tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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