stocks_list_industry

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get unique industry values') but does not add context about return format, empty results, or read-only nature. The description is accurate but minimal, offering no behavioral traits beyond the bare operation.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It is fully front-loaded and delivers all necessary information efficiently.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a clear purpose, the description is complete. An agent can correctly call it without needing additional details about arguments or return values because none exist.

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, so there is nothing to describe. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4 since the description need not compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 stocks' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('industry values for stocks'), making the purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like stocks_list_sector or etf_list_industry by specifying both the asset class (stocks) and the facet (industry).

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stocks_list_sector, stocks_list_market, or other list_* siblings. Since the tool is one of many similar list tools, an agent would need explicit context to choose it correctly, but none is offered.

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