listing_industries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a purpose and offers no context about the data source, return format, or any side effects. For a simple read operation this is minimal, but it does not go beyond what could be inferred from the name.

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 a single, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words or repetition. Every word contributes to meaning, and it is effectively front-loaded.

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 tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, a terse description can be adequate. The description covers the core purpose but omits any behavioral or usage context that would help the agent decide when to invoke it, leaving it minimally complete but with clear gaps.

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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter 'source' with details about VCI/KBS and a default, so the description need not add parameter syntax. However, the description does not add any extra context about the parameter, like how source selection might affect results, so it stays at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'ICB industry classification for Vietnamese stocks,' making the primary purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like listing_all_symbols or listing_symbols_by_group, which focus on symbol listings rather than industry classification.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when ICB classification is needed, but it does not mention exclusions or compare with related listing tools.

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