ofp_sectors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: sectors can be 'implemented', 'planned', or 'placeholder', and only 'implemented' indicates published reference content. This helps the agent avoid assuming every listed sector is actionable.

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?

Two sentences with the core action first and the status semantics second. Every sentence contributes necessary meaning and there is no filler.

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 one optional parameter, complete schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description fully conveys how to interpret results and the caveat around placeholder sectors. No output schema is present, but the description supplies the key return concept: each sector carries a status.

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% and the only parameter, axis, already has an enum and a descriptive line. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List industry sectors and their reference implementations', which makes the tool's basic purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling ofp_sector, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 instruction 'Check the status before assuming a sector has content' gives concrete guidance on how to interpret results and avoid acting on empty taxonomy entries. It does not mention when to prefer this list tool over ofp_sector or ofp_models, so it lacks explicit alternative routing.

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