Industry Rank

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and open-world hints. Description adds output structure (items array with counter_id, name, chg, lists) and mentions passing counter_id to another tool. No contradictions. While it could describe pagination or effects of limit, annotations cover safety.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose, efficient use of space. Includes key details and integration hint without unnecessary words.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return format (items array with fields) and usage context. Missing explanation of 'lists[]' field, but overall sufficient for basic usage. Integration hint adds value.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description repeats some mapping (indicator values to Chinese names, sort_type meaning) but adds little beyond schema. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states it is an 'industry ranking list by market and indicator', specifying the verb 'list', resource 'industry ranking', and scope (market, indicator). It also provides output structure and a hint to use industry_peers for peers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like industry_peers.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (to get a ranking list) and when not ('Pass counter_id directly to industry_peers'), providing a clear alternative. Also specifies required market parameter and optional parameters.

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