get_industries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool returns a tree with IDs and describes the raw parameter's effect on output format. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or any other side effects, which is a minor gap given the simple getter nature.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The action is stated first, followed by the specific use case. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?

For a simple getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it returns (tree with IDs) and why to use it (to find industry IDs). It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it could have elaborated on the exact structure of the tree or typical response.

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 single parameter 'raw' is fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the tree of company industries with IDs') and clearly indicates its purpose for the search_vacancies industry filter. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the industry tree and its IDs, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like get_dictionaries.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: to find industry IDs for the search_vacancies industry filter. It provides clear context but does not mention exclusions or alternatives, which would have made it a 5.

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