industry_overview

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it names the top-tier research sources and describes fallback behavior when sector is omitted. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded sentences convey the core purpose, scope, and usage hint efficiently. The source list is somewhat long but adds credibility and helps define the tool's domain; no filler.

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 description conveys what the tool returns (industry research with specific components) and how to steer it, which is enough for initial selection. With no output schema, it does not describe return structure or formatting, but the core decision-making context is present.

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 clarifies the sector/company relationship and fallback, but leaves other context fields (country, listed, date, companyDomain) semantically unexplained, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 ('Retrieves') and a clear resource ('macro/industry-level research') with enumerated content areas (market structure, key players, growth drivers, TAM/market size). It distinguishes itself as the industry-wide context for company-specific reports, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools that overlap (e.g., market_size).

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 actionable usage guidance: pass context.sector for a sharper search, and notes the fallback to context.company's industry. It contrasts with company-specific (micro) reports, implying when not to use it, but it does not name alternative sibling tools or explicit exclusions.

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