list_industries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a list of industries and the encode field, but does not describe whether the operation is read-only, the scope of returned industries, potential pagination, or any limitations. Essential behavioral context is missing.

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 extremely concise, with the purpose and a crucial usage hint front-loaded, followed by a clear parameter specification. No redundant words or filler.

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 that an output schema exists (covering return fields) and the tool is a simple listing with one optional parameter, the description covers the essential integration context (use for screen_stocks) and parameter values. It is adequate, though it could note that market defaults to CN (already in schema) and there is no mention of any additional behavior like pagination.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the schema only states type and default. The description explicitly lists allowed values (CN/HK/US) for the market parameter, filling a critical gap and making the parameter meaningful.

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 it lists Shenwan industry classifications, and explicitly ties the returned encode to the industry parameter of screen_stocks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools and gives a specific verb-resource combination.

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 implies the primary usage (obtain industry codes to feed into screen_stocks) but does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the tool's specialized nature, this is adequate, though not fully explicit about exclusions.

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