industry_summary

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes by revealing the computed content (cap-weighted change, index effect, queue counts), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about freshness, market-hours dependency, or whether omitted industries are dropped or zero-filled.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource announced first and the metrics listed after, with no filler or repetition. It is slightly list-like and the parenthetical Persian term is unexplained, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description carries the necessary burden by naming the returned measures, so an agent knows what a call yields. Remaining gaps are minor: it does not state the response structure (per-industry rows) or whether the market parameter changes the set of industries returned.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema itself spells out 'bourse', 'fara', and the omit-for-both default. The description adds no meaning beyond that and does not even mention the market selector, so it sits at the baseline where the schema does all the work.

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 names a specific resource ('per-industry breakdown') and enumerates the concrete measures it returns: traded value, average and cap-weighted change, index effect, and queue counts. That is far more specific than a tautology and clearly separates it from market-level siblings such as market_overview or indices, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: the phrase 'per-industry breakdown' suggests this is the tool for industry-level aggregation rather than per-symbol or whole-market views, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over market_overview, indices, or trade_summary, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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