search_industries

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the result limit (up to 25 results), the meaning of both parameters, and the dual search/list modes. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or edge cases, but for a search tool this is adequate transparency.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: primary function, usage context, and parameter/output details. No filler, front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given the simple two-optional-parameter interface and presence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary invocation details: what the tool does, when to use it, parameter semantics, and output size. It is complete for an agent to select and call 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 coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining that query is a text search with an example ('software') and level is an integer for NAICS depth (1=sector, 2=subsector, up to 6=national industry). This adds semantic meaning the schema alone completely lacks.

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 it searches BLS industries by name or lists by NAICS level, with an explicit purpose of finding NAICS codes before querying employment data. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_industry_detail, which presumably retrieves specific industry details.

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 instructs to use this tool before querying employment data to locate NAICS codes, providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the workflow context is strong enough to guide correct usage.

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