get_industry_rank

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the basic purpose, though it does not contradict annotations. No added context about results variability, pagination, or data freshness.

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?

Description is succinct: one-line purpose, structured <strategy> and <examples> tags, and a parameter list. Every element adds value, no redundancy.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no required ones, and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It explains what data is returned (rankings by change rate) and how to use parameters. Missing explicit detail on sorting direction (ascending/descending), but strategy implies top/bottom.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear parameter definitions: sector_type (default 'industry') and count (default 20), plus an example. This meaningfully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get industry/concept ranking by change rate.' The example shows usage with specific parameters, and the strategy tag clarifies the purpose: 'find top/bottom performing sectors.' This is specific and distinguishable from siblings like get_hot_rank.

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 <strategy> tag explicitly says 'Use to find top/bottom performing sectors,' providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit exclusion or alternative tool references, though the sibling list suggests other ranking tools exist.

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