market_size

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals no side effects, and the description adds useful context about relying on analyst/research sources and extracting approximate numeric estimates via pattern matching. This helps set expectations about data provenance and precision.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the main purpose and adds a concise behavioral detail. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only implies that numeric market size and CAGR estimates are returned. It does not describe the return format, units, source attribution, or how output may vary based on optional inputs, leaving moderate ambiguity.

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 schema has nested parameters with almost no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain how parameters like company, country, listed, or date affect the market size lookup. The description only references 'industry', leaving important parameter behavior unclear.

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 the tool's specific function: finding market size and CAGR figures for an industry from research sources. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like financial_statements or dcf_valuation because it focuses on market-level numeric estimates, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 purpose implies usage for market-sizing questions, but there is no explicit 'use when' guidance or notes about when to prefer this over related tools like industry_overview. Usage intent is inferable but not directly stated.

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