get_sector

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds behavioral context by detailing the composition of the returned data (companies, ETFs, funds, industries) and clarifying the key format, which is useful for an agent planning subsequent calls. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three compact sentences with zero filler. The main action and key distinction (not a ticker) are front-loaded, follow-up detail is organized logically, and every sentence adds value. This is a model of concise technical writing.

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 presence of an output schema and the annotations covering safety/volatility, the description provides complete guidance: it lists the return categories, the drill-down path to get_industry, and the key semantics. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly without additional inference.

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%, giving a strong baseline. The description adds meaningful nuance by explicitly stating the key is not a ticker and providing examples (technology, healthcare), which helps prevent misuse beyond the schema's enum list. The limit parameter is already well-documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it.

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') and resource ('market sector'), explicitly distinguishes it from ticker-based tools, and enumerates exactly what is returned (overview, top companies, ETFs, funds, industries). It clearly differentiates from the sibling get_industry, making its role unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use it: for sector-level browsing, and explicitly points to get_industry for drilling down into industries. It also warns 'not a ticker,' which implies not for individual securities. However, it does not systematically contrast with all other sibling tools beyond the industry drill-down, so a 4 is appropriate.

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