Industry Vocabulary

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it is deterministic, makes no model call, answers in milliseconds, cannot fail on an upstream, and explicitly reports whether it matched a real vertical or fell back to generic. It also mentions cost (1 MESH/call). These are valuable operational details not present in the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by efficiency, reliability, and cost details. It is reasonably concise, though the parenthetical '(1 MESH/call, a tool · business)' adds some clutter. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

The description covers the tool's output (industry terms, match/fallback status) and performance characteristics, but given there is no output schema and the input schema is generic, the ambiguity about input format is a gap. For a tool with one simple input, the description is nearly complete, but the object/string mismatch makes it incomplete.

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 has one parameter with a generic, tool-agnostic description ('Capability-specific payload...'), which offers no specific meaning. The tool description adds that the input should be a trade or industry in plain words, but it does not resolve the mismatch between the schema (object type) and the description (plain words), leaving ambiguity about the exact expected structure. The description partially compensates for the schema's lack of specificity but not fully.

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's function: taking a trade/industry in plain words and returning the industry-specific language (caller, appointment, provider, qualification questions). It uses a specific verb ('hand it') and resource ('industry-vocabulary') and distinguishes itself from siblings like agent-memory or task-analysis by focusing on industry terminology.

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 implies usage ('Hand it a trade or industry') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or comparison with sibling tools, so the guidance is inferred from the purpose rather than explicit.

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