chIndustryList

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing behavioral beyond 'No arguments' — no indication of data source/provider, read-only nature, pagination, or result cardinality. For a zero-arg list tool with an output schema this is a modest but real 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?

Three short, front-loaded fragments with no filler. The bilingual restatement is slightly redundant but serves a purpose for mixed-language agents, and 'No arguments' resolves the calling contract immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return fields need not be explained, and with no parameters there are no inputs to document. The definition is complete for calling the tool, though it omits any routing guidance relative to its many siblings.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case, and the description confirms this with an explicit 'No arguments' statement. There is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get list of industry sectors'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools like chStockList and chConceptList. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the real-time sibling chIndustryCurReal, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 arguments' is the only usage note; there is no statement of when to use this instead of chIndustryCurReal, chIndustryDayHistory, or the other list tools. The intended usage is only inferable from the name.

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