get_industry_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the output includes 'change percentage, member count, and leader stocks' but does not explicitly state it is read-only, safe, or any side effects. The name 'get' implies a safe operation, but the description lacks explicit assurance.

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 one sentence and a bullet point list of key output fields. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently uses space, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 no output schema, the description provides some context about the return data (change percentage, member count, leader stocks) but omits details like pagination, error handling, or data format. The description is adequate for a simple list retrieval but leaves gaps for complex use cases.

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?

While the input schema provides 100% coverage for the two parameters (market and limit), the description adds no additional semantic value. It mentions 'full list' but includes a limit parameter, creating potential confusion about whether the output is truly exhaustive. The description does not clarify the format of market codes or the behavior of the limit.

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 the verb (Get), resource (full list of industry sectors), and scope (for a market). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_leading_industries by specifying 'full list', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context (retrieving the complete industry list for a market) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions are provided, leaving the agent to infer from similar tool names.

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