list_ato_benchmark_industries

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the data source and the default behavior when year is omitted, but it does not characterize read-only status, side effects, error cases, or result handling beyond what the output schema already covers.

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 compact: a one-sentence purpose followed by two short parameter-behavior notes. Every sentence adds value and the core action is 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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema to describe return shape, and the description covers source, purpose, and parameter behavior. It could briefly point users toward get_ato_benchmarks for retrieving actual benchmark values, but that is not necessary to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain both parameters: search filters by name, and year is an optional benchmark year with a concrete example and fallback behavior. It could be more precise about accepted year formats, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('ATO small-business benchmark industries'), and data source ('ato-benchmark-compare'). It is clearly differentiated from the sibling get_ato_benchmarks by focusing on the industries list rather than benchmark values.

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?

Clear context is provided for both optional parameters: search filters by name, and year selects a benchmark year with a defined default when omitted. The description does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple list operation the usage intent is obvious.

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