List Industries

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 fully covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: that the list contains 'industry starter kits this server can generate' and that the result feeds into a specific downstream tool. This is meaningful behavioral/scoping information, though it doesn't describe output format or pagination (minor for a zero-parameter read-only list).

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 zero fluff. The primary action is stated first, followed by the critical routing instruction. Every word adds value.

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, read-only list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It states the purpose, usage order, sibling relationship, and downstream integration. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke this tool correctly.

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 the input schema is empty, so the description needs no parameter explanation. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately adds no extraneous parameter detail. It does mention passing the 'id' downstream, which clarifies how the output is used rather than parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('industry starter kits'), and immediately distinguishes this tool from its only sibling by stating that it should be used first, with the chosen id then passed to create_business_config. An agent can clearly understand what this tool returns and how it differs from the sibling without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this first') and the follow-up action ('then pass the chosen id to create_business_config'), naming the alternative tool directly. This gives clear guidance on invocation order and relationship to the sibling.

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