industry_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description is not required to repeat them. It adds context about the source list and return content, which helps set expectations. No side effects are mentioned, but the read-only nature is covered by annotations and the description is consistent.

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, information-dense sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and provides useful source details without excessive verbosity.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain the return format or additional behavior. It mentions the content areas but omits details about input semantics and edge cases. The nested parameter structure is not explained, so the definition is incomplete for an agent to use the tool confidently without additional inference.

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% for the top-level context parameter, and the description does not explain how to construct the context object or what each field means. The nested schema has partial descriptions, but the essential sector requirement is not clarified. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 retrieves an industry overview, specifying its components (structure, key players, growth drivers) and top-tier sources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like company_overview and market_size by explicitly focusing on industry-level analysis.

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 implies usage for industry analysis but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like company_overview or market_size. It provides no 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and description.

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