get_industry

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description aligns with that by saying 'Browse' and describes what is returned, but it does not add much behavioral context beyond the annotations—no ordering, pagination, or edge-case behavior is disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return contents. It is concise, though the final sentence repeats 'not a ticker symbol' from the opening, making the wording slightly redundant without harming clarity.

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 output schema exists and the input schema covers all parameters, the description supplies the essential extra context: where keys come from, what the output covers, and what kind of input is expected. Nothing important is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'key' and 'limit' fully documented including types, defaults, and constraints. The description reinforces the key-discovery instruction and the non-ticker warning, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: browse an industry by its Yahoo key. It enumerates concrete return contents (industry overview, parent sector, top companies, top performers/growth), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company_info or get_sector. The repeated 'not a ticker symbol' further pins down the resource type.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on how to obtain valid keys: from the 'industries' list returned by get_sector, with 'semiconductors' as an example. It also warns not to pass a ticker symbol. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when to prefer it over a sibling such as get_sector, so it falls just short of a perfect usage guide.

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