industry_overview

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, and the description uses 'retrieves' consistently. It adds some behavioral context by listing sources and fallback behavior, but does not disclose details like return format or network/external access beyond what openWorldHint suggests.

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 and well-structured: purpose and content are stated first, source list is compact, and usage guidance is separated cleanly. No redundant wording or unnecessary details.

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 research-retrieval tool, the description gives a strong sense of what will be returned by enumerating content areas and sources. There is no output schema, so the exact response format is not specified, but the intended use and behavior are adequately complete.

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 description adds value by explaining the relationship between context.sector and context.company and the fallback behavior. The schema already provides descriptions for date, sector, company, and companyDomain, and the enum fields are self-explanatory, so the key usage semantics are covered.

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 retrieves macro/industry-level research and specifies the content areas (market structure, key players, growth drivers, TAM/market size) and source types. It distinguishes this from company-specific research, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives practical guidance to pass context.sector when known and explains the fallback behavior of searching by context.company's industry. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'company-specific report should sit inside' framing communicates its intended context.

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