Subscribe to Industry Monitoring (NACE)

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the upsert key '(user, nace_code)', the fact that subscribing to a parent code matches child codes, the requirement for a plan with Firmaovervakning, and that it delivers HTTPS webhooks. It doesn't describe rate limits or failure behavior, but for a subscription creation tool with strong annotations this is solid.

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 five sentences, each adding necessary information: purpose, prerequisites, matching behavior, filtering advice, and idempotency. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and well-structured, with no wasted words.

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?

With 11 parameters and a rich schema plus an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers prerequisites, behavioral nuances (parent code matching), parameter usage strategies, and when to call it. The presence of sibling tools and the description's own clarity make this comprehensively complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter guidance that isn't in the schema, such as 'Restrict `events`... and use geographic/size filters to cut volume in large industries, or pick a digest `aggregation_mode`.' This connects parameters to practical outcomes, improving usability. It doesn't fully explain every parameter, but the schema already does.

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 purpose: 'Subscribe to industry (NACE) monitoring' and explains that Firmaradar delivers webhooks when companies in the chosen industry trigger monitored events. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying NACE/industry scope rather than individual company monitoring, and the verb 'subscribe' is specific.

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 strong usage context: 'Call only when the user has asked to set up industry monitoring', 'Use list_nace_codes first to resolve the exact code', and 'Requires a user whose plan has Firmaovervakning enabled'. It also gives advice on restricting events and using filters to manage volume. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like firmaradar_add_company_monitoring for company-level monitoring, so it stops short of full comparative guidance.

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