market_size

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint by disclosing the method (pattern matching) and the sources (IMARC, Statista, etc.), aligning with openWorldHint. No contradictions with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and mentions sources and method. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is complex due to a nested context object with several properties, but the description does not explain the input structure or any prerequisites. Without an output schema, the description should at least guide on required fields like sector, but it does not. This is a significant omission.

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 has zero description coverage for the top-level 'context' parameter, and the description provides no information about how to populate it. The required 'sector' field is undocumented, and optional fields like company, country, and date are not explained. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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: finding market size and CAGR figures for an industry, and lists specific research sources. It distinguishes from broader tools like industry_overview by focusing on quantitative metrics, though it doesn't explicitly compare to that sibling.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like industry_overview. The description implies usage for market size queries but does not state exclusions or conditions that would favor a different tool.

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