industry_model_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a 'Draft-map' action, suggesting a planning step rather than a direct transformation, but does not disclose specifics like error handling, irreversibility, or side effects. Some transparency but gaps remain.

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 concise—two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the action, and the second provides context. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations), the description could be more complete. It lacks guidance on how to use parameters like 'overrides' or behavior when data is missing. However, the output schema exists and provides return value info, so the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The overall description adds context about conforming to a canonical model, but does not provide additional per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Draft-map a Domo DataSet's columns onto a canonical industry-model table.' It uses a specific verb ('draft-map') and resource ('DataSet columns to industry model'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_industry_models' (listing) and 'transpile_lineage' (transpilation).

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 implies usage during mapping before transpilation ('so the transpiled pipeline lands governed...'), but does not explicitly state when to use vs. when not to. No exclusions or alternatives are provided, though siblings hint at different steps. Guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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