Arcgis Austin

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral details like default model, free vs. paid Anthropic calls, and return format (per-model data + combined view). No contradictions, and adds value beyond 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?

The description is a concise paragraph with no filler. Front-loaded with main purpose, then details. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return structure effectively. Covers parameters, use cases, and behavioral nuances. Complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, and the description adds further meaning: default model behavior, _apiKey only needed for Anthropic, context disambiguation. This provides clear guidance beyond the schema alone.

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 it probes LLMs and scores visibility (0-100) per model for a given entity. It specifies default model and optional Anthropic probe, effectively distinguishing its purpose from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence or compare_entities.

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?

Provides clear use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains when to use _apiKey. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare with similar sibling tools, though the context is sufficient for most agents.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc. The description adds context about routing to 4,552 tools, returning citation URIs, and covering many data sources. No contradictions. Adds value beyond 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?

The description is comprehensive but front-loaded with the key instruction 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'. It could be slightly shorter, but every sentence earns its place with specific guidance and examples.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (routing to thousands of tools across domains), the description is complete: it explains the purpose, usage, parameters, output format (structured answer with citations), and comparison to siblings. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100% (all 6 parameters well-described). The description adds examples and explains the types of questions that are appropriate, which is informative beyond the schema.

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 it routes factual questions to many tools, provides structured answers with citations, and distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research. The verb 'ask' and resource 'Pipeworx' are specific.

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?

Explicitly says 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', provides example questions, and tells when to step up to alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant answers, deep_research for broad/multi-part questions). Includes clear when-to and when-not guidance.

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

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: explains the extra LLM call cost, the explicit refusal reasons (not_in_source, no_tool_match, etc.), and that it only uses tool result data. No contradictions 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential details like refusal modes and use cases. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (high-stakes, 4,552 tools across 1160 sources), the description fully covers purpose, when to use, behavioral traits, and return format (including refusal reasons). No output schema, but the description explains return values adequately.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add new meaning beyond stating 'accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases,' which is already in the schema. Baseline 3 for high 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 identifies the tool as a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads,' specifies it routes through the same process as ask_pipeworx but only extracts answers from tool results, and distinguishes it from the sibling tool ask_pipeworx.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and advises preferring ask_pipeworx for casual lookups. Also mentions it costs one extra LLM call, providing clear guidance on trade-offs.

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

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

Description extensively details behavioral traits: resolver contract (match confidence, alternatives), parent event extractor, news fallback handling, safety short-circuits for low-confidence matches, closed market detection, wide-spread market flags, and resolution-rule risk. Annotations (readOnly, idempotent) are consistent; no contradiction.

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?

Description is comprehensive but lengthy, with multiple paragraphs covering many details. It is front-loaded with purpose, but could be more concise. Some technical details (e.g., specific data packs) might be extraneous for an agent.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple classifiers, fan-out patterns, response shapes, edge cases), the description covers all aspects: input formats, classifier list, fan-out examples, response fields, resolver contract, parent event extraction, news handling, safety mechanisms, and resolution-rule risk. No output schema, but response shape is thoroughly described.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value: explains depth parameter (quick vs thorough), provides examples for market input, and details include_raw trade-offs. This goes beyond the baseline schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: researching Polymarket bets by pulling relevant Pipeworx data. It specifies inputs (slug, URL, question) and outputs (evidence packet, market-vs-model comparison). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases: 'should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', 'is there edge in Z'. Provides context for when to use, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to siblings beyond stating its scope.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds critical behavioral details: handles off-calendar fiscal years, sorts by primary metric, returns pipeworx:// citation URIs. No contradiction.

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?

Description is front-loaded with example queries and is well-structured. Though somewhat long, every sentence adds value (usage guidelines, data sources, processing details). Could be slightly more concise but efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, description explains return includes paired data and citation URIs. Covers both type and values parameters. Missing potential limitations or data freshness but comprehensive for a comparison tool.

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 coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning: explains type enum with data sources (SEC EDGAR for company, FAERS for drug), specifies values format (tickers/CIKs, drug names), and constraints (2-5 items). Provides examples.

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?

Description starts with specific query examples and clearly states it provides side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs. It distinguishes between entity types with different data sources. Sibling tools like entity_profile exist but description explicitly contrasts with sequential lookups.

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?

Explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities', providing clear usage guidance. Does not mention specific alternatives by name but implies context for when to use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: expected duration (15-60s), decomposition into facets, parallel execution across 4,552 tools, return format (findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, gaps), and account tier differences. No contradiction; description enhances transparency.

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 dense with information but slightly lengthy (over 200 words). However, it is well-structured: front-loaded with the critical account requirement, then purpose, then usage guidance, then behavior. Every sentence adds value, but it could be tightened slightly for optimal conciseness. Score 4.

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?

Given the complexity (2 params, no output schema, but rich annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return format, limitations (empty gaps for non-structured topics), time expectations, and sibling differentiation. It effectively compensates for the lack of output schema by describing the findings packet structure.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value: it explains the depth enum values ('quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8 (paid plans)') and clarifies that the question parameter can be broad/multi-part. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, warranting a 5.

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 purpose: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1160 STRUCTURED data sources in ONE call.' It uses a specific verb ('research'), specifies the resource (structured data sources), and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with ask_pipeworx. This meets the criteria for a 5.

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 provides explicit when-to-use (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when-not-to-use (single lookup → ask_pipeworx; breaking news → ask_pipeworx). It also mentions account requirements and the alternative tool for unsigned users. This comprehensive guidance earns a 5.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by stating that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed,' which is a key behavioral trait. No contradictions 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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary action and is well-structured. However, it is somewhat long due to an enumerated list of domains; could be slightly more concise while retaining 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?

Given the tool's discovery function, the description adequately explains the output (top-N tools with schemas) and usage context. No output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. It is complete enough for effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minor value by noting aliases and providing examples, but does not substantially enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It specifies the verb ('discover'), the resource ('tools'), and lists specific domains, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other functions.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for...' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available.' It implies not to use when you already know the tool, but does not explicitly list alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral details: parallel call, fan-out across sources, return fields with URIs, USPTO sunset and soft-fail, and GDELT→GNews fallback. No contradictions.

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 long but front-loaded with example queries and key behavior. Every sentence adds necessary context for a complex tool; could be more structured but overall efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return fields, sorting, URIs, fallbacks, and limitations. It addresses complexity with multiple sources and provides all needed information for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining type='company' (only supported), value as ticker or CIK, and explicitly stating names not supported with a reference to resolve_entity.

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 specifies the tool provides a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company' and lists sources (SEC, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF) and return fields. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it should be preferred over chaining single-pack lookups and that names require resolve_entity first.

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 includes explicit usage examples: 'Tell me about X', 'research Acme', etc., and advises to use resolve_entity if only a name is provided. It also states when to prefer this tool (holistic view) over alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about clearing sensitive data but does not elaborate on error handling (e.g., missing key). Consistent with annotations, no contradiction.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and follow with usage guidance. No redundant or extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage conditions, and relationships with siblings. No critical gaps detected.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description 'Memory key to delete'. The description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Delete a previously stored memory by key' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall' by explicitly naming them and indicating complementary use.

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?

Provides explicit usage scenarios: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. Also advises pairing with 'remember' and 'recall', effectively indicating when not to use.

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

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds value by explaining the fetch-extract-emit behavior and the output format. There is 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?

The description is concise (3 sentences), well-structured with the main purpose first, followed by behavior and use cases. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the simple tool with 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and robust annotations, the description covers the core functionality and output. However, it lacks details on error handling or edge cases, leaving minor completeness gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. The mention of 'any URL' reinforces the url parameter, but no new semantic details are provided.

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 generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the verb 'generate', the resource 'llms.txt file', and the output format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on AI crawler indexing.

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 provides concrete use cases (indexing a client's site, drafting for own project, auditing competitors) but lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds specific details about returned information (fields, geometry type, count, capabilities), which is beyond annotations and clarifies the tool's output.

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 sentence lists the tool's purpose and what it returns. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains return values completely. Could mention authentication needs, but annotations cover general safety.

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 provides 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter. The tool description reinforces usage via 'by url' and the schema description gives an example URL format, adding context.

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 schema information for an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer, including fields, geometry type, record count, and capabilities. It distinguishes itself from siblings like query_layer which likely retrieves actual features.

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 use when schema metadata is needed, contrasting with siblings like query_layer. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, not destructive. The description adds the return fields and default behavior (active only) beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second gives usage guidance. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: return fields, default behavior, and usage hints. Could mention pagination or rate limits, but not essential.

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 coverage is 100% with the one parameter 'include_inactive' fully described. The description does not add additional semantic meaning to the parameter beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with specific verb and resource, and lists the returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe'.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more' and 'find an id to cancel'. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear and practical.

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

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

Discloses rate limits (5 per identifier per day), that it doesn't count against quota, and how the team processes feedback. Annotations are all false and provide no behavioral info, so the description adds essential context.

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?

Four concise sentences front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then formatting, then team behavior. No wasted words, every sentence earns its place.

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 simple feedback tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, behavior, and constraints. No missing information for correct invocation.

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 descriptions already cover all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds a bit of usage context (e.g., don't paste prompts) but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 purpose: sending feedback about bugs, missing features, or praise. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the only feedback tool.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and provides a don't (avoid pasting user prompts). Also mentions rate limits and that it's free, guiding agent decision-making.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable detail: data source (CF analytics-engine), no PII, aggregate format, and caching behavior (5min-1h). This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise (under 100 words) and well-structured with bullet points for use cases. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers input semantics, output format (top tools, top packs, call volume), data freshness, and use cases. An agent would clearly understand what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'window' parameter fully described in the schema. The description further explains the effect of different window durations, adding semantic value beyond the enum.

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 it returns trending tools and packs over a configurable window. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'discover_tools' by focusing on current call volume data from other agents.

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?

Three explicit use cases are listed, providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not contrast with siblings or mention when not to use it.

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

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

Description adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: explains semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity), partition filter, fill check against live depth, and conditions for not trading. 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?

Well-structured with clear sections (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK) and front-loaded purpose. Slightly long but every sentence adds value given complexity.

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?

Comprehensive coverage: response structure explained, edge cases (placeholders, fill check) described, no output schema needed. Completeness is high for a complex arbitrage detection tool.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage) and the description adds usage recommendations, example values, and explains how each mode works, significantly enriching understanding.

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 finds arbitrage opportunities via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes three modes (no args, event, topic) and provides examples.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use each mode: no args for trending scan, event for specific market (recommended), topic for cross-event scanning. Also mentions alternative polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive actions. The description adds extensive behavioral context: caching (1h), tradeable-edge filters, Kelly caps, slippage, diagnostics for empty segments, and 24h-move warning. No contradictions.

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 thorough but verbose, spanning multiple paragraphs with nested details. While front-loaded with purpose, it could be more concise for an AI agent to quickly grasp core functionality.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, model families, segments, diagnostics), the description is fully complete. It explains response structure, caching, knobs, and edge cases like Fed bets and empty segments, compensating for the lack of output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds extra rationale, especially for min_partition_leg_kelly (explains basket trades) and category_filter. Slightly above baseline 3 due to added nuance.

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 scans Polymarket markets and returns opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, with a specific use case 'what should I bet on today'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing unique model families and segments.

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?

Provides context on when to use (discovery without paging hundreds of markets) and includes tunable knobs (min_liquidity, max_spread_pp, category_filter). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds significant behavioral context: snapshots are written only on cache-miss (gaps mean no scan), decay numbers from daily closes not intraday, and history bounded by 60-day TTL. No contradiction.

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 dense but well-structured: purpose first, then response format, then limits. It is not overly verbose; each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but still efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) with details on edge_pp_net time-series, trends, decay rate, and lifespan. It covers all relevant behavioral aspects and limits.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context: days default/max, window families (24hr, 1wk, 1mo), and explains their role in the snapshot family. It is clear, though could explicitly mention clamping for days.

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?

Description clearly states it provides edge persistence and decay telemetry, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It distinguishes from a fresh edge vs an old one, and the verb 'tracks' with resource 'polymarket_edges snapshots' is specific.

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 explains when to use this tool (to see historical persistence and decay, and to avoid treating old wide edges as unexploited). It mentions limits (60-day TTL, snapshot start) but does not explicitly exclude cases or name sibling tools for comparison.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable behavioral details: walks the ladder, returns top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict, per-leg fill detail, thin_legs, and forced_directional_risk. Warns about partial fills and unhedged directional risk, which is critical.

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 well-structured with sections (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and front-loaded with purpose and required parameters. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value, so conciseness is slightly sacrificed for completeness.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description comprehensively lists all return fields for both modes. It covers two modes, input parameters, return values, and critical caveats. For a complex tool with important risk warnings, the description is complete and self-contained.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning: explains size_usd for single-market as 'max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells' and for basket as 'settlement notional S'. Also clarifies side defaults and auto-detection for basket mode. Adds significant context beyond the schema.

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 it is a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket). It directly differentiates from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying when to use it before acting on signals or trades above ~$500.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500. It also explains why (theoretical overround not capturable on thin books, partial basket fills convert arb into unhedged directional) and requires one of market or event.

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

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

Despite annotations already indicating safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavioral details: compatibility_warning conditions, temporal_alignment checks, and skipped leg counters. It transparently discloses that spreads are mathematically meaningless when temporal alignment is false, and that non-equivalent bet shapes invalidate arbitrage.

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 lengthy but well-structured: first sentence defines purpose, then sections for modes, response, and safety fields. Every sentence adds value given the complexity. It could be slightly trimmed, but the front-loading is excellent.

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 fully specifies the response format including leg prices, top spreads, compatibility flags, temporal alignment, and skipped counters. It covers edge cases (unrelated events, mismatched bet shapes) and guides interpretation. The tool's complexity is adequately addressed.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions, but the description significantly enriches parameter semantics. It explains the 'topic' shortcut list, auto-fetch behavior, and override logic for explicit tickers. It clarifies that topic is optional and defines the precedence when both topic and explicit parameters are provided.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as computing cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same question. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on inter-venue comparison. The verb 'spread' and resource description are specific and actionable.

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 explains two usage modes (topic shortcuts and explicit pairing) and provides examples. It warns that most pre-mapped topics currently return a compatibility warning, discouraging naive use. However, it lacks explicit directions on when to use this tool versus other arbitrage or edge tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds context that the tool returns geometry, which is beyond annotations, but does not disclose limits, auth, or error handling.

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 sentences, both impactful: first covers purpose and parameters, second provides a quick-start tip. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions return includes rows and geometry, explains pagination, and gives a sample query. Lacks explicit response structure but sufficient for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by showing usage patterns (e.g., SQL-like where, comma-separated out_fields) and a concrete example, enhancing understanding beyond raw schema.

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 queries an ArcGIS Feature/Map Service layer via URL, distinguishes it from sibling tools by referencing search_datasets for finding datasets, and specifies the return includes attribute rows and geometry.

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 after search_datasets and gives a practical example ('Use where="1=1" + out_fields="*" to sample'), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives like layer_info for metadata.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about scoping to an identifier, listing all keys when omitted, and pairing with other tools. No contradictions.

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?

Three concise sentences that front-load the main action, provide examples, and then add scoping and pairing context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema needed, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters completely. The examples and pairing guidance make it self-contained.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description. The description adds practical examples (user's target ticker, address) and reinforces that omitting the key lists all keys, going beyond the schema.

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 a previously saved value or lists all keys, with specific verbs and resource ('Retrieve a value previously saved via remember'). It distinguishes from siblings 'remember' and 'forget' by mentioning their pairing.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'to look up context the agent stored earlier' and provides examples. Implicitly tells when not to use (for saving or deleting) by referencing sibling tools 'remember' and 'forget'.

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

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

The description contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation by stating that setting mark_read:true flags events as read, which modifies server state. While it adds behavioral context beyond the schema, the contradiction with annotations necessitates a low score per the scoring rule.

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 concise at six sentences, front-loading the main purpose and then detailing features and parameters. No unnecessary words or redundancy, and the structure is logical and easy to follow.

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 explains filtering and mark_read, it omits details on the return structure (beyond mentioning three fields), does not mention the unread_only parameter, and does not clarify the default limit behavior (50). For a tool without an output schema, these gaps limit completeness for an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it mirrors the filter and mark_read behavior without providing extra constraints or examples.

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 pulls fired events from the subscription feed and returns recent alerts with specific fields like source, citation_uri, and raw payload. The verb 'Pull' and resource 'fired events from your subscription feed' are specific, and the description distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on alert retrieval with multiple filtering options.

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 fetching recent alerts by explaining filtering parameters and the ability to mark events as read. It mentions polling works fine and provides an alternative endpoint for scripts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other tools like ask_pipeworx or subscribe, nor does it provide exclusions.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description details internal fan-out to SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO (with soft-fail), and return structure. No contradictions 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?

The description is front-loaded with example queries, then concisely explains behavior, parameters, returns, and alternatives. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the absence of output schema, the description clearly states the return shape (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). It also covers fallback logic and source-specific behaviors, making it complete for an informed agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful extras like relative shorthand examples and recommended usage for 'since', but the schema already conveys the core semantics sufficiently.

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 provides a change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months with multiple example queries. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'entity_profile' by specifying it returns dynamic changes rather than a static profile.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use (e.g., 'latest on Y', 'updates on Acme') and when not to use ('Use entity_profile instead for static profile'). It also recommends typical 'since' values like '30d'.

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

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: persistence details (24 hours for anonymous, persistent for authenticated) and scoping by identifier. No contradictions 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear main action, usage context, and pairing hints. It is front-loaded but slightly wordy (3 sentences). A more concise version could omit redundant phrasing like 'across this conversation or across sessions'.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently covers usage, parameter roles, persistence behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. For a simple write operation, it is complete and actionable.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description of key (with examples like 'subject_property') and value ('any text') adds modest additional meaning beyond the schema fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later'. It specifies the resource (key-value memory scoped by identifier) and distinguishes from siblings like recall and forget by explicitly pairing them.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and pairs with sibling tools ('Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete'). It also differentiates between authenticated vs anonymous sessions.

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

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

Adds detail beyond annotations: explains internal cascading across endpoints, and specifies exact returns (ticker, CIK, RxCUI, etc.) with citation URIs. No contradictions 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 well-structured sentences cover purpose, when to use, supported types, and internal behavior without wasted words.

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?

Though no output schema, description fully explains returns for each type. Covers all necessary information for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, description adds value by clarifying accepted formats (ticker, CIK, name) and providing examples for both types, plus explaining output per type.

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?

Description explicitly states it resolves names to canonical identifiers with example queries and supported types. It distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning itself as the first step when an ID is needed.

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?

Clearly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', and notes it replaces manual lookups. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context with sibling tools implies it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it probes each entity and returns ranked list with score, confidence, signal density, which is useful behavioral context beyond 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?

Concise, front-loaded purpose, every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, description explains return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). All parameters are documented in schema, and description adds needed context. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. Description adds specific meaning: first entity treated as subject, provides example for context parameter. Adds value beyond schema.

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 compares AI visibility across multiple entities, probes each with ai_visibility_check, and ranks them. It distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check which is for single entities.

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?

Provides clear use case (competitive AI-marketing audits) and an example question. Could explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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

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

Adds significant context beyond annotations, such as graceful degradation of partial failures, bundlephobia measurement latency (5-30s), and listing of sources_failed. No contradictions 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?

Single well-structured paragraph front-loaded with the core composite check purpose, then details of outputs, usage, and caveats. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Without output schema, the description fully specifies the return structure (summary block with fields, advisories, links, alternatives) and behavior under partial failures, making it complete for agent use.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about scoped packages being accepted and version defaulting to latest, justifying a 4.

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 purpose as a composite check for deciding whether to add an npm package, specifying the verb 'scan' and resource 'dependency'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the multiple data sources it queries.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me') and provides clear alternatives for other ecosystems (PyPI, Maven, etc.) under deps.dev.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields (name, summary, record_count, owner/org, url) and the tool's role in a pipeline, complementing the 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 sentences with no fluff: first sentence states the action and scope, second sentence lists output and next steps. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the output fields and downstream usage. Given the rich annotations and simple parameters, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description reiterates the query parameter with examples and mentions the default limit, but adds little new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 searches City of Austin GIS open geospatial datasets by keyword, specifies example dataset types, and lists the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like query_layer and layer_info by positioning itself as the entry point for finding datasets.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to pass the returned Feature Service url to query_layer or layer_info, and mentions example keywords. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear and points to alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readonly and idempotent. The description adds concrete behavioral details: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine similarity, 500-char overlapping windows, 200K char cap with truncation flag, and output format (passages with offsets and scores). No contradictions.

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 dense sentences pack all key info without redundancy. Slight room for improvement in readability (e.g., splitting into bullet points), but no wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers output format (passages, offsets, scores). Technical details (embeddings, window size, cap) are provided. Lacks explicit mention of error handling or edge cases, but sufficient for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%. The description adds defaults ('limit': 5), examples for 'query', and clarifies the 'text' parameter's max length. It also explains the output format, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' and gives concrete examples (SEC 10-K body, article, long tool result). It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_datasets' and 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' by emphasizing it operates on already-fetched text.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and suggests pairing with 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' for grounded generation. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with description which indicates subscription creation (non-read-only) with no destructive behavior. Description adds useful behavioral context like 10/day SMS cap and webhook auto-disable after 10 failures, beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Well-structured with main purpose first followed by details. Every sentence adds value, though length could be slightly trimmed without losing essential 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?

Comprehensive coverage of all 3 parameters, nested objects, multiple subscription types, delivery options, prerequisites, and side effects. No output schema, but description provides enough context for tool invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, but description significantly enriches semantics with concrete examples for each type's params (e.g., sec_8k items, polymarket_edge topic/min_spread_bps) and detailed delivery channel explanations including webhook signature verification and verification steps for SMS.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription', clearly states it returns subscription id, and distinguishes from siblings like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe which manage existing subscriptions.

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?

Explicitly states requirement for Pipeworx OAuth account, provides examples for each subscription type with parameter details, and explains delivery channel constraints (email, sms, webhook). Could more explicitly contrast with streaming/query tools, but covers key context.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds value by explaining the return format (category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shape) and that it draws from a live catalog. No contradiction.

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?

Description is slightly verbose (multiple lines) but front-loaded with key user intents. Every sentence adds value, though it could be tightened slightly without losing clarity.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter behavior, and expected output. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds significant context beyond the schema: explains the effect of omitting vs passing a topic, provides example topics (finance, pharma, etc.), and clarifies that the tool requires no arguments for full spread.

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?

Description states specific verb ('suggest questions') and resource ('Pipeworx capabilities'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ask_pipeworx' and 'discover_tools' by positioning itself as the onboarding entry point. Examples of user intents (e.g., 'what can you do?') reinforce clarity.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools.' Also provides guidance on argument use: 'Call with no arguments for the full spread, or pass topic to focus.'

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

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

Adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: ownership enforcement and the fact that rows are deactivated (not deleted), preserving historical data via recent_alerts. 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with action and key constraint, followed by a useful behavioral note. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter, idempotent, non-destructive tool with annotations, the description fully covers purpose, constraint, and effect. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'id' is well-described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond 'by id'. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Cancel' and resource 'subscription', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions.

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?

States ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), providing clear when-to-use context. Though no explicit alternative tool is named, it implies you cannot cancel others' subscriptions, which is useful guidance.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context about return values (verdict, structured form, actual value with citation, percent delta) and version limitations. No contradiction.

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 front-loaded with examples and use cases. While somewhat long, every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more terse but still effective.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the return types, domain scope, and limitations. No gaps for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter. The description reinforces with examples of expected input format ('Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion').

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 specifies the tool's purpose (natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources) with examples and domain scope (company-financial claims for public US companies). It distinguishes from alternatives by stating it replaces 4-6 sequential calls.

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 explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It implies limitations (only company-financial claims) but does not explicitly list when not to use it.

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