Industries

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is in disclosure: money is in Rial, Agah's `industry` mode returns a return table plus member stocks, and sources answer in separate blocks with per-source error isolation. This is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, though pagination/return shape is not described.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and ranking dimensions, then source capabilities, then next steps. The telegraphic style ('Money is Rial') is efficient but slightly clipped; nearly every clause carries information, with only mild redundancy against the schema's sort/source enums.

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 five-parameter, dual-source tool with no output schema, the description covers units, per-source block/error behavior, the industry drill-down mode, and follow-up tools. It stops short of describing the shape of the ranked rows or how limit applies across two blocks, which the schema only partially covers.

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 100%, so the schema already documents sort/source/limit/industry semantics, including which sorts work per source. The description reinforces the source capability matrix and the Rial unit, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what is structured. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (rank) plus the resource (bourse industries) and enumerates the ranking dimensions and the two data sources (Mofid, Agah). An agent can immediately distinguish this from br_stocks, br_screener, or br_market_top without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the source split (Mofid's 53 industries with valuation ratios vs. Agah's flow/return data) and gives explicit handoff guidance: 'Next: br_technical with an industry ISIN, or br_stock.' It does not state when to prefer br_screener or br_stocks instead, so no true exclusion guidance, but the routing context is clear.

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