Industry Rank

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful response expectations: items[] with symbol, name, chg, and lists[], plus the symbol format example. Minor gaps like empty results and pagination behavior are not covered, but for a read-only list tool these are acceptable.

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 dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core scoping dimensions (market and indicator), then covers sort_type, return fields, and the natural next step. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the key selection dimensions, return item fields, and the integration path to industry_peers. The lists[] field is left somewhat undefined and pagination is not addressed, but limit is already covered in the schema, so the remaining gap is small.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents market, indicator, sort_type, limit, and _jq. The description repeats indicator and sort_type values without adding substantial new parameter meaning beyond the schema; it mainly adds output structure, which is not a parameter concern.

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 identifies an industry ranking list, scoped by market and indicator, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from industry_peers by positioning that sibling as the next step, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other rank-oriented siblings like rank_list or rank_categories.

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 provides clear context on what the tool is for and gives a concrete follow-up instruction: 'Pass a row's symbol directly to industry_peers.' It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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