list_industries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a non-destructive read, but the description does not explicitly state the safety profile, nor does it mention response format, ordering, localization, or error behavior. It does add the useful fact that the categories are predefined and serve a specific filter purpose, which gives some behavioral 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?

A single sentence with zero filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the purpose and relationship to search_leads are stated compactly. Every word earns its place.

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, no-output-schema list tool, the description is highly complete. It states what the tool lists, why the values matter, and how they connect to the sibling tool. The only minor omission is any detail about the format or type of the returned entries, but this does not hinder an agent from using the 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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the returned values are intended to be used as the `industry` filter in search_leads, which is not evident from the empty schema. This helps the agent understand the semantic value of the output.

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 ('List') and a clear resource ('predefined industry categories'), and immediately ties them to their purpose ('as the `industry` filter in search_leads'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling, search_leads, by showing it is the source of valid filter values.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: it says the industry categories 'can be used as the `industry` filter in search_leads.' This implicitly tells the agent to call this tool before or when constructing a search_leads call with an industry filter. It does not explicitly cover when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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