Dict Industries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return content (a tree of industries plus sub-industries with ids), which implies a safe read-only dictionary call. It does not describe the node shape, whether results are cached, or how large the tree is, leaving real gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and the return content stated immediately; no filler, no repetition of the title.

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 zero-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description should ideally sketch the returned structure (nested id/name nodes, depth) since nothing else documents the response. It says a tree with sub-industries and ids, which is directionally useful but not enough to predict the payload.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call needs no input because the full industry tree is returned.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('tree of industries'), and clarifies the domain with the parenthetical 'spheres of company activity'. It also states that the result includes sub-industries and their ids, so an agent can tell this apart from area/language dictionaries. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with neighbors like dict_dictionaries or suggest_companies.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'ids' and the hierarchical structure suggests this is the lookup used to resolve an industry to an id before filtering or submitting data. There is no explicit statement of when to use it, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related lookups.

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