listing_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 doesn't mention what the output contains (list of industries, mappings to stocks?), whether it's a bulk snapshot, how 'source' affects results, or any data freshness characteristics. There's also an output schema present, which could reveal behavior but isn't visible to justify a higher score.

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?

A single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Very efficient with zero waste. Could be slightly richer while remaining concise, but as written it is appropriately terse.

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?

For a simple 1-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is largely adequate. However, given the ICB classification context and available siblings like listing_symbols_by_group, a bit more context on what the returned classification looks like would strengthen completeness. Moderate complexity tool, marginal adequacy.

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 100% and the single 'source' parameter is already documented with default and allowed values (VCI/KBS). The description doesn't add detail beyond this, but with a single well-documented parameter and full coverage, the baseline of 3-4 is appropriate. The 'VCI or KBS' source options are self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get ICB industry classification') and narrows scope to Vietnamese stocks. However, it doesn't distinguish this from listing_symbols_by_group or listing_symbols_by_exchange siblings, though 'ICB industry classification' does convey a distinct data type. It's clear but minimal in differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus listing_symbols_by_group or listing_symbols_by_exchange. The ICB industry classification angle is implied but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are mentioned.

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