breakdown_by_industry

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses substantial behavior: multiple-testing correction raises the bar for a clear change, rows are in SIC order not size order, counts appear only for divisions with a clear change, rounded counts cannot be used for ranking, and formation-agent addresses are excluded from area answers. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 opening question front-loads the purpose and the caveats follow in a logical order. Sentences are long and dense, and the multiple-testing explanation is slightly convoluted, but nearly every clause carries actionable information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the interpretive pitfalls (ordering, rounding, significance, excluded addresses) thoroughly. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly contrast itself with the ranking and area-comparison siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents area, against, to_quarter, from_quarter, and include_closed in detail. The description only reinforces the default period length; it adds no new syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource and operation: new company counts broken down by 2-digit SIC industry division, comparing a period against an earlier one with a significance test. It is clearly distinct from siblings like largest_industries or rank_areas_against_great_britain, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

It gives clear usage context ('What's growing here?'), states the default comparison period, and issues an explicit directive not to rank divisions because rounded counts are unreliable. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead for ranking or area comparison, so the routing guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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