industry_db_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that the tool only reports row counts and cache freshness, which implies a read-only status check, but it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or describe any freshness semantics.

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 compact phrase that names both key outputs: table row counts and cache freshness. There is no filler, repetition, 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?

For a zero-parameter status tool with an output schema present, the description captures the essential subject matter and is sufficient for an agent to invoke it. It falls slightly short of 5 because it does not clarify which tables belong to the 'industry database' or how freshness is defined, though the output schema likely covers those details.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline score of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 that the tool reports row counts and cache freshness for the industry database, which clearly identifies the resource and the information it exposes. It is not a tautology and the 'industry database' qualifier helps differentiate it from generic cache_status, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cache_status or the various industry_* tools. The status phrasing implies a diagnostic/monitoring use, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.

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