etf_list_industry

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 only states the action and resource, providing no information about output format, data freshness, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. For a simple list tool this might be acceptable, but the description offers no behavioral context beyond the literal function.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It states the verb, resource, and target audience in a front-loaded manner, avoiding any redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, obvious use case), the description is adequate. It communicates the core purpose clearly. While it doesn't explicitly mention the return type (e.g., a list of strings), that can be reasonably inferred from the phrase 'unique values'. For a basic enumeration tool, this is sufficient context.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The schema_description_coverage is trivially 100%, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and no further clarification is required.

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 'Get unique industry values for ETFs' clearly states a specific verb (get), resource (unique industry values), and scope (ETFs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like etf_list_market, etf_list_country, etf_list_sector, which return other attribute dimensions, and from stocks_list_industry for the stock counterpart.

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 usage context is implied by the name and description: this tool is for retrieving available industry categories for ETFs, likely to be used as filter values in other ETF queries. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose etf_list_sector instead), and no mention of when not to use it.

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