get_industry_top_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Retrieve a list', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state safety, effects, or limitations. More detail would be expected for complete transparency.

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 very concise, using two short sentences. It avoids redundancy but could include a bit more context without being verbose. The structured Args/Returns format aids readability.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and return type, but lacks details on what defines 'top', valid industry names, or how to handle errors.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description merely restates the parameter name ('industry') without adding semantic value (e.g., valid values, format, or relation to other tools). The description adds little beyond the schema's title.

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 clearly states it retrieves a list of top companies within an industry. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'top companies' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_industry_top_growth_companies or get_industry_top_performing_companies, which have more specialized purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_industry_top_growth_companies). There is no mention of prerequisites, industry name format, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess.

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