Industry Peers

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (chain with name, counter_id, stock_num, chg, ytd_chg, next; top with name, market) and node contents, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences: the first explains the tool's purpose, the second describes the output. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous 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 simple tree tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input source and output structure comprehensively. Combined with informative annotations, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the single parameter 'symbol' is well-documented in the schema. The description confirms the source ('from industry_rank') but does not add new meaning beyond the schema, hence a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Hierarchical sub-sector tree for an industry group.' It specifies the input source ('BK counter_id from industry_rank') and outlines the output structure, making it distinct from siblings like 'industry_rank'.

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 explicitly states that the tool accepts a BK counter_id from 'industry_rank', indicating a prerequisite tool to use first. This provides clear context for when to invoke this tool, though it does not explicitly exclude other cases or mention alternatives.

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