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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions some output content (SIC codes, industry titles, business information) but omits critical details such as parameter precedence, response shape, pagination, or whether a search requires one identifier vs. multiple. This is insufficient for a search 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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It effectively communicates the core action, though the trailing 'with the FMP Industry Classification Search API' adds little operational value; still, the structure is clean and 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of three optional parameters, the description fails to clarify important behavior like whether exactly one identifier is required, how conflicting parameters are handled, and what the response format looks like. It provides only a broad hint of content.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (cik, symbol, sicCode) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-specific guidance, such as when to use one parameter over another, so it does not exceed schema contribution.

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 identifies the tool's function as searching and retrieving industry classification details, naming specific content (SIC codes, industry titles). It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish it from the many sibling tools like getAllIndustryClassification or getIndustryClassificationList.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings or what the search criteria are. There is no mention of required parameters, exclusions, or ideal use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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