largest_industries

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds behavior beyond that: the default four-quarter window, the size-not-growth framing, and the note that area answers omit formation-agent addresses. Return format is left to the output schema, which is acceptable, so this falls just short of the top mark.

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?

Dense and largely front-loaded, moving from the question to the resource, the defaults, and the sibling routing in three sentences. The opening rhetorical question is a small framing cost, but the remaining wording all carries 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?

For a question-shaped aggregation tool with five parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers scope, default period, exclusions, and the alternative tool. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing, though pagination or limit behavior is only implied by the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the area format and the from_quarter/to_quarter defaults. The description's period default ('the latest four quarters') restates what the schema says rather than adding new semantics, 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?

States a specific verb+resource: the 2-digit SIC industry divisions with the most companies registered in a place over a period, returned largest first with a likely range and rank. It explicitly distinguishes itself from breakdown_by_industry on the size-vs-growth axis, so an agent can separate it from the closest sibling without reading either 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?

Names the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Size, not growth: for what is growing, use breakdown_by_industry.' It also states the default period and the caveat that area answers exclude formation-agent addresses, so the agent knows what question this tool answers and what it does not.

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