查询论坛行业分布

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee that identity information is not returned, which goes beyond the annotations and confirms the tool's privacy-preserving nature.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and a key limitation.

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?

While the description clarifies the data aggregation (industry distribution per forum) and privacy aspect, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., list of industries with counts, percentages) and edge cases (e.g., empty result). Since there is no output schema, this missing information could leave an agent uncertain about the exact structure of the response.

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 only parameter forumId is fully described: it is optional and omitting it returns all forums. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description aligns with the parameter's purpose without ambiguity.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the industry aggregate distribution of registrants for each parallel forum, and adds a privacy guarantee that it does not return identity information. This clearly distinguishes it from other sibling tools like summit_get_forum_distribution which likely returns overall forum metrics.

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 obtaining industry breakdowns per forum and explicitly notes the privacy aspect, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like summit_get_registration_summary or summit_get_forum_distribution, nor does it state when to prefer this tool over them.

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