List Industries

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal the return contents (keys plus Korean names), but it says nothing about whether the list is static or live, whether any auth is needed, or how large it is. For a zero-parameter read-only enumeration the risk is low, so a 3 reflects adequate but thin disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every clause earns its place by naming the resource, the return contents, and the intended use.

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 simple no-argument enumeration with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it yields. Only a hint about the size or stability of the list would make it fully complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; baseline 4 applies. The description still usefully characterizes the output shape as key/name pairs, which aids correct downstream filter construction.

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 and resource ('List the industry keys and Korean names') and adds scope: these values are filters for category=industry. That distinguishes it from the research/stock lookup siblings without naming them explicitly, though an explicit pointer to search_research would have earned a 5.

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 phrase 'usable as filters for category=industry' tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool: to resolve valid industry filter values before a search. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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