get_industry

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses the key inputs, the non-ticker requirement, and the structure of the return value (overview, sector, top companies, top-performing/growth). This is valuable behavioral context. It does not mention rate limits or error conditions, but for a read-only browse tool, the disclosed information is sufficient.

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 concise, with three sentences that each add distinct value: what it returns, how to find valid keys, and the critical distinction from tickers. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 that an output schema is present (so return values are fully defined) and annotations are absent, the description provides all essential context for correct tool selection and invocation: purpose, key source, and input constraints. It is complete for a browse tool of this complexity.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents key and limit thoroughly. The description adds semantic clarity by reinforcing that 'key' is an industry key (not a ticker) and by giving concrete examples like 'semiconductors'. This extra disambiguation goes beyond the schema's literal parameter descriptions, warranting a score above the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Browse') with a specific resource ('an industry by its Yahoo key'), and clearly distinguishes from ticker-based tools by emphasizing 'not a ticker symbol'. It also names the output contents (industry overview, parent sector, top companies, top performers), making the tool's role unambiguous and differentiated from siblings like get_sector.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when you have a Yahoo industry key, and it tells how to obtain valid keys via get_sector. It also explicitly warns against using a ticker symbol, which helps prevent misuse. It does not explicitly list alternative tools for similar tasks, but the context strongly implies the appropriate use case.

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