get_industry_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds what is aggregated (top companies by size, YTD performance, growth), which is useful context, but discloses nothing extra about caching, rate limits, or data freshness.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by clearly labelled Args and Returns blocks; the Args section is long but each example key earns its place given the absent enum. Slightly verbose but no wasted sentences.

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 the return format needn't be spelled out, annotations cover behavior, and the single parameter is illustrated with concrete keys. The description is complete enough to invoke correctly, with the default value being the only omission.

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 0% and the single parameter has no enum, so the description must carry the load — and it does, giving five concrete industry key examples and routing to get_sector_overview for the full key list. The only gap is that it never states the schema's default value of 'semiconductors'.

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 ('Get an industry overview') and elaborates the content it surfaces: largest, best-performing and fastest-growing companies. It also distinguishes its scope from get_sector_overview by positioning that tool as the key directory, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a 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?

Usage is implied ('get an industry overview' when you want industry-level aggregate data) and the reference to get_sector_overview is a useful cross-link for key lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance against the many other overview siblings (get_company_overview, get_sector_overview, get_market_summary).

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