get_industry_top_performing_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like mutability, authentication requirements, or performance criteria. The description merely states the function without additional context.

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 concise with clear Args/Returns sections. No redundant information is present, and it effectively communicates the core purpose in a structured manner.

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 parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks context on what defines 'top performing', how results are ordered, or any limitations, which are important for understanding its full scope.

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 for the industry parameter. The description adds a basic definition ('The name of the industry'), which is minimal but necessary. It does not provide examples, formats, or possible values, leaving room for improvement.

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 performing companies in an industry, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_industry_top_companies or get_industry_top_growth_companies, missing the chance to clarify uniqueness.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of similar sibling tools (e.g., get_industry_top_companies, get_industry_top_growth_companies), this omission makes selection ambiguous.

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