Arcgis Cupertino

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: default model, cost implications for Anthropic, and return structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response + combined view). 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 three sentences: first sentence states core purpose and default behavior, second explains key parameter (_apiKey) and cost, third summarizes return structure. Front-loaded with essential information, 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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It covers return structure (per-model and combined), default model, optional parameters, and use cases, all of which are sufficient for the agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the free default model, that _apiKey is only needed for 'anthropic', and that context disambiguates entities. This helps the agent use parameters correctly.

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 action (probe LLMs, score visibility 0-100) and the resource (business/brand/product/topic). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by specifying per-model scoring, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 clear usage context (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains when optional parameters are needed (models, _apiKey, context). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence'.

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. The description adds that the tool routes to the correct tool, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. This adds operational context beyond annotations without 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 the key directive 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'. It uses clear sections: primary use, routing mechanism, usage guidance with examples, and step-up conditions. Every sentence adds value, and the structure helps an agent quickly parse when to invoke.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format (structured answer with citation URIs). It covers a wide range of domains and question types, and provides examples. For a tool with 6 parameters (all aliases), it 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% with all parameters documented. The description adds meaning by explaining that the question parameter accepts natural language and lists multiple aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt). This aids agent understanding of flexible input formats.

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 answers factual questions about current/historical data from 4,552 tools across 1160 sources, with specific domains listed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research, making its purpose unambiguous.

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' and provides when to use this vs alternatives: use ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant single answer, deep_research for broad multi-part questions. Includes example question types and contexts.

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 behavioral traits beyond annotations: describes how it works (same routing, then extracts only from tool result), return format with specific fields (answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason), and lists explicit refusal reasons. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.). Adds significant 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?

Well-structured with clear sections. Each sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded. Slightly verbose but justified by complexity. Efficient for the amount of detail provided.

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 return values, failure modes, and trade-offs (extra LLM call). Covers the tool's behavior comprehensively for high-stakes use cases, leaving no major 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% with all parameters as aliases for 'question'. Description confirms 'Your question in natural language' and lists aliases, but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and contrasts it with ask_pipeworx by detailing the extra extraction step and explicit refusal reasons. It distinguishes effectively 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 the agent must not invent facts', and when to avoid: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'. Provides clear guidance on 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?

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It details resolution confidence levels, market closure handling, wide-spread warnings, resolution-rule risk parsing, and news fallback mechanisms. This comprehensive transparency ensures the agent understands the tool's behavior and edge cases.

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 notably verbose, containing extensive detail on classifiers, fan-out examples, response shapes, and edge cases. While it is front-loaded with the core purpose, the length may reduce readability. Every sentence adds value, but the overall density could be streamlined without losing critical 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 complexity and lack of an output schema, the description compensates thoroughly by detailing response shapes (e.g., result.market, result.analysis, result.evidence), resolver contracts, parent event extraction, and safety mechanisms. It covers all necessary context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 parameter descriptions already in the schema. The description adds some usage context (e.g., 'Default thorough', 'Default false') and clarifies the market parameter accepts slugs, URLs, or text. However, it does not significantly deepen the semantic understanding beyond the schema, maintaining the baseline of 3.

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: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies the verb (Research), resource (Polymarket bet), and action (pull Pipeworx data), distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage which focus on different aspects.

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 usage scenarios: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' This clearly indicates when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, which would elevate it to 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?

The description discloses behavior beyond rich annotations: it explains data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), correct handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return of paired data with citation URIs. 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 detailed and well-structured, front-loading key phrases. While slightly long, every sentence adds value and maintains 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?

Given the tool's complexity (comparing multiple entities with two types and different data sources), the description covers parameters, data pulled, sorting, citations, and efficiency gains. It is comprehensive without an 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%, and the description adds significant meaning: it explains the 'type' enum values and how to provide 'values' (tickers/CIKs for companies, drug names for drugs) and what data each type retrieves.

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 performs side-by-side comparisons of 2-5 companies or drugs in one parallel call. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from siblings like entity_profile and search_within.

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 usage scenarios ("Compare X and Y", "X vs Y", etc.) and advises to prefer this over sequential lookups. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the context makes it clear for comparative tasks.

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 behavioral traits beyond annotations: account requirement, free tier vs paid plan, parallel decomposition into facets, expected 15-60s response time, return format (findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, gaps), and that it is not open-web search. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint).

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 critical information (account requirement, alternative tool) and structured logically. Every sentence adds unique value; no redundancy. Despite length, it is appropriately detailed for a complex tool without being verbose.

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 the return value (findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, gaps). It covers edge cases (empty gaps for unstructured topics) and performance expectations, making the tool fully understandable.

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 significant context beyond schema: explains depth enum values (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and clarifies that the question parameter accepts broad/multi-part input, which is the point of the tool.

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 performs 'grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1160 STRUCTURED data sources' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx. It specifies the verb 'research' and the resource 'structured data sources', making the purpose highly 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 provides when-to-use guidance ('broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and when-not-to-use alternatives ('single lookup use ask_pipeworx', 'BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS topics prefer ask_pipeworx'). Also notes account requirements and fallback tool for non-signed-in users.

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=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by noting that results include full input schemas with curated examples ready to call, and no second schema lookup is needed.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and examples, but slightly verbose. Every sentence earns its place, though could be tightened.

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, but description explains return values (names, descriptions, schemas with examples). Parameter count is reasonable; aliases are handled. Adequate for a discovery 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples and alias notes, but does not significantly 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists concrete use cases (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.) and distinguishes this discovery tool from sibling tools that are domain-specific 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 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set.' Provides clear usage context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or cite alternative tools.

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 significant context beyond annotations: details the parallel fan-out across multiple sources, mentions USPTO PatentsView API sunset May 2025 and soft-fail behavior, and lists specific return fields. Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive nature, and description aligns without 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 dense with valuable information but slightly verbose. Front-loads with example queries, then details sources and returns. Every sentence contributes value, but could be more streamlined.

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 (multi-source profile), the description is thorough: lists all sources, return fields, limitations (USPTO sunset, name not supported, only company type), and behavior. No output schema, but return fields are described adequately. Annotations and schema coverage complement the description.

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?

Description adds meaning beyond schema: explains that type is limited to 'company' for now, clarifies that value must be ticker or zero-padded CIK, and explicitly states names are not supported. Schema coverage is 100%, but description provides crucial usage nuances.

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 provides a full cross-source profile of a US public company. Lists multiple example queries and specific return fields. Distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_entity and mentions it should be preferred over chaining single-pack 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 says 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' Also specifies that names are not supported and directs users to use resolve_entity first if only have a name. Provides clear when-to-use and 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 indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description aligns with ('Delete'). However, the description does not disclose what happens if the key does not exist (error vs no-op), leaving a minor gap. 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 with two sentences that are front-loaded with the action and purpose. 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides ample context: when to use, what it does, and how it relates to siblings. No gaps given 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 one parameter 'key' described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description does not add further semantics beyond mentioning 'by key', so 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 deletes a memory by key, using a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('memory by key'). It distinguishes itself from siblings 'remember' and 'recall' by mentioning 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?

The description provides explicit usage contexts: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. It also suggests pairing with related tools, but does not explicitly state 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?

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safe, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about fetching the page and extracting content, clarifying the open-world nature. 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 a single, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the purpose, then briefly describes process and use cases. 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the output format ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt'). Parameters are clearly described. The tool is simple and fully covered.

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 value by specifying default (25) and maximum (50) for max_links, which the schema lacks. This compensates beyond the baseline 3.

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 an llms.txt file for AI crawlers, with specific steps (fetch, extract, emit) and explicit use cases (client sites, own project, audit competitor). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a specific output format.

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-case guidance: 'Useful for: getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor.' It does not explicitly state 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?

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior; the description adds context on returned schema details but does not disclose additional behavioral traits 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. Every part contributes to explaining the tool's purpose.

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 one parameter, high schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently explains the tool's output and context. Sibling tools provide complementary functionality.

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 of the 'url' parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'ArcGIS Feature/Map Service'), not significantly 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'layer schema', specifying what is retrieved (fields, geometry type, record count, capabilities). It distinguishes from sibling 'query_layer' which likely queries data.

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 for schema retrieval via URL, and sibling tools like 'query_layer' provide contrast, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others or exclude alternative scenarios.

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. Description adds context about filtering active vs inactive subscriptions (via the include_inactive parameter), which is not in annotations. Does not contradict 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 with no wasted words. First sentence states the purpose and output; second sentence provides usage guidance. Front-loaded and 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: purpose, return fields, usage context, and parameter behavior. It is fully complete.

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?

Input schema covers include_inactive with description. The description adds meaning by stating 'active subscriptions' implying default is to exclude inactive, and mentions the return fields. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description adds useful context, hence 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 action: 'List the caller's active subscriptions' and specifies the returned fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe by focusing on listing.

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 provides usage guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and for what purpose.

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 provide basic read/write hints, the description adds significant behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, doesn't count against quota, and that the team reads digests daily. 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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, but it is slightly verbose; could be condensed without losing clarity. 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 no output schema needed, the description covers all necessary aspects: usage, parameters, rate limits, behavioral info, and context signals. It is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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: it explains enum values for 'type' beyond the schema, provides guidance on message content and length, and clarifies the optional 'context' object with examples. This enriches parameter 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 it is for sending feedback to the Pipeworx team about bugs, features, data gaps, or praise. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes itself from siblings that are about other functions like search, research, or subscription management.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use (wrong/stale data for bug, missing tool for feature/data_gap, positive experience for praise) and what not to do (don't paste end-user's prompt). It also provides rate limits and quota information, guiding appropriate usage.

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 non-destructive, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context: data source (CF analytics-engine), privacy (no PII), caching (5min-1h), and aggregation nature. 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 a single, well-structured paragraph of six sentences. The most critical information (purpose, what it returns) comes first, followed by use cases and technical details. No fluff.

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 has only one optional parameter and comprehensive annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the output (top tools, packs, volume) and caching. It could optionally mention the return format (e.g., JSON structure), but this is sufficient for an 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 coverage is 100% with enumerated values and descriptions. The description adds semantic guidance on how window length affects output (hot vs steady-state), which goes 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 verb ('returns') and the resource ('top tools, top packs, and total call volume') with a specific time window. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx' and 'discover_tools' by focusing on aggregate trends.

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 provided, along with guidance on window selection ('shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand'). While it lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions, the context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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 indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive. Description adds rich behavioral details: monotonicity checks, partition sum checks, fill check against live CLOB depth, semantic anchor with Jaccard similarity, partition filter with placeholder detection. 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?

Description is comprehensive and well-structured with front-loaded purpose, followed by mode explanations, then detailed edge cases. While every sentence adds value, it is relatively long; minor trimming could improve conciseness 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?

Despite no output schema, description thoroughly explains response structure including opportunities[], partition_check fields, and fill_check results. Covers event and topic modes, semantic anchor, partition filter, and references sibling tool for custom sizing. 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. Description adds significant meaning beyond schema: gives examples of event slugs and topic seeds, explains output differences for each mode, and details edge-case handling (e.g., skipped_low_similarity, placeholders_filtered).

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 finds arbitrage opportunities via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. Distinguishes between three distinct modes (no-args, event, topic) and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk.

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 describes when to use each parameter: no args for trending scan, event for a specific market, topic for cross-event scanning. Includes guidance on when not to trade (realizable_edge_pp <= 0) and references 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?

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: model families (MODEL_DRIVEN, STRUCTURAL_ARBITRAGE, CONCENTRATED_LONGSHOT), caching at KV level every hour, diagnostics for empty segments, and detailed edge computation (e.g., slippage, Kelly filters, 24h-move warning). No contradiction with annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive).

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 and long, covering many details in a structured manner with bullet points for segments. However, it could be more concise; some details (e.g., exact model parameters) might be better suited for external documentation. The front-loading of the main purpose is good.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema, rich internal logic), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers return format (by_segment, diagnostics), caching, filter knobs, segment explanations, and caveats (Fed bets, placeholder filters). An agent has enough information to use the tool 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context beyond the schema—e.g., slippage_pp explains Polymarket's lack of fees but depth impact, min_liquidity mentions walking the book, and min_partition_leg_kelly clarifies why partition arbs skip min_kelly. Baseline 3, extra context raises to 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 scans top Polymarket markets and returns opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, explicitly for the use case 'what should I bet on today'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by detailing its unique edge-computation models 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?

The description provides guidance on when to use the tool (discovering opportunities without paging hundreds of markets) and explains how to interpret empty segments via diagnostics. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use, but the filtering knobs and segment explanations offer sufficient 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=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: limits (60-day snapshot TTL, decay from daily closes not intraday, snapshot gaps from cache-miss). 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?

Description is relatively long but well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, then details on response format and limits. Each sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant phrasing.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and edge cases (gaps, TTL, computation method). With only two optional parameters, this is complete for an agent to understand 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for two parameters. Description adds value by explaining that 'days' defaults to 14, max 30 (schema says clamp 2-30), and 'window' is the snapshot family (24hr, 1wk, 1mo) with default '1wk'. This clarifies beyond schema descriptions.

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 provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' from daily snapshots, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It specifies the outputs like first_seen, trend, decay_pp_per_day, expired, lifespan_days, snapshot_dates, and contrasts with a fresh vs old wide edge. This uniquely defines the tool's purpose among siblings like '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?

The description gives context on when to use the tool (to assess edge persistence vs. recency) and explains the significance of a 3-week-old wide edge. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for related tasks.

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 indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, not destructive. The description goes beyond by explaining it checks live CLOD order-book depth, returns a verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), and warns about forced directional risk. 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 long but well-structured with capitalized mode sections, front-loaded purpose, and minimal redundancy. Every sentence adds value, though some details (e.g., enumerated output fields) could be slightly more compact 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return fields for both modes, including 'top_of_book', 'vwap_fill_price', 'verdict', etc. for single-market, and 'theoretical_sum', 'capture_ratio', 'thin_legs', etc. for basket. It covers edge cases like forced directional risk, making it complete 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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds context beyond the schema: it explains that one of 'market' or 'event' is required, how 'side' defaults and differs by mode, and how 'size_usd' is interpreted (spend vs. target proceeds for single-market, settlement notional for basket). This adds meaningful usage semantics.

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 states the tool performs 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and clearly distinguishes between single-market and basket modes. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying usage before acting on those signals.

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 when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It also explains why, detailing risks like 'theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable' and 'partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position', giving clear 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 extensively discloses behavioral traits: response structure (leg prices, spreads), safety fields (compatibility_warning with two cases, temporal_alignment, skipped counters). Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds rich context without 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 the core purpose and well-structured, but it is verbose with long sentences and could be more concise. Every sentence provides value, but some details could be condensed.

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 of the tool and absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers purpose, modes, response details, and safety warnings. It addresses all key aspects needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 adds value by explaining modes and overriding behavior for each parameter. It provides examples and lists topic shortcuts, enhancing 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 identifies the tool's purpose: computing cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes between two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers) and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on cross-venue comparison.

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 each mode and warns that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility warnings, so pre-mapped ≠ tradeable. It explains criteria for meaningful spreads but does not directly compare with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage for when to use 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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: returns attribute rows and geometry, supports SQL-like where, pagination, ordering, field selection, and URL structure. This is valuable 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 three sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value with 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 tool complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and output basics. It lacks pagination details but is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 semantic context: explains that `where` is SQL-like, `out_fields` is comma-separated, and provides a usage tip (where='1=1' + out_fields='*'). This improves over the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Query' and the resource ('ArcGIS Feature Service / Map Service layer'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the URL comes from search_datasets. It lists the key parameters and provides a tip.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives context for when to use (after search_datasets) and provides a helpful sampling example. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like layer_info, 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds scope (identifier) and the effect of omitting the key (list all). No contradictions; adds helpful 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, scope, pairing. No fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description fully covers the tool's behavior, parameters, and usage context given its simplicity (1 param, no output schema). 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% with description for 'key'. The tool description adds crucial semantics: omitting key lists all saved keys, and provides examples of what keys represent, 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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource 'a value previously saved via remember'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'remember' and 'forget' and explains the listing behavior when key is omitted.

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 the tool (to look up context stored earlier without re-deriving) and mentions scope (identifier). It pairs with remember/forget but does not explicitly state 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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says setting mark_read:true flags events as read, which is a mutation. This contradiction severely undermines transparency. Otherwise, the description does disclose mark_read behavior and alternative endpoint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded paragraph of four sentences, each earning its place with no wasted words. Purpose, details, and usage guidance are efficiently structured.

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 read-only list tool, the description covers return fields, filtering, polling behavior, and an alternative endpoint. It lacks pagination details but is otherwise complete. The annotation contradiction reduces confidence slightly but the description itself is informative.

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, but the description adds significant value by explaining filter usage (e.g., type 'sec_8k', ISO timestamp for since) and the effect of mark_read, making parameters clearer than 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 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only alert retrieval tool. It also mentions return fields like source, citation_uri, and raw payload.

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 mentions that polls work fine and provides an alternative HTTP endpoint for scripts and dashboards. It implicitly guides usage with filter parameters but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare with siblings.

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 idempotent. Description adds details about multi-source fan-out, fallback behavior (GDELT→GNews), USPTO soft-failure, and return structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs). 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?

Description is front-loaded with examples and clear structure, but slightly verbose. However, every sentence provides necessary context 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?

Given no output schema, description sufficiently explains return value. Covers all parameters, usage, fallback behavior, and edge cases (USPTO soft-fail). Complete for a complex multi-source aggregation 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% with descriptions, but description adds meaning: explains 'since' accepts ISO date or relative shorthand with examples, and clarifies 'value' can be ticker or CIK.

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: providing a change feed for a company over a recent window, fanning out to multiple sources. It distinguishes from the sibling 'entity_profile' tool by specifying when to use each.

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 provides example queries and explicitly states when to use the alternative ('Use entity_profile instead...'). Also advises typical 'since' values like '30d' or '1m'.

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 context beyond annotations: scoping by identifier, persistence differences for authenticated vs anonymous users. Does not override 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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded purpose, 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?

Covers usage, persistence, and related tools despite simple schema; no gaps given annotations.

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 already covers 100% of parameters; description adds minimal value beyond naming key-value pair.

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?

Clearly states the tool saves data for later reuse, specifies key-value storage, and distinguishes from siblings recall and forget.

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 ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and mentions companion tools (recall, 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?

Annotations are already readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. Description adds that it cascades through multiple lookup endpoints internally, revealing internal behavior beyond annotations. Specifies exact return fields per type, including citation URIs.

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. Starts with concrete examples, then direct purpose statement, then usage instruction, then detailed type breakdown. No unnecessary words; 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?

No output schema, but description fully explains return values per type. Notes it replaces 2-3 manual lookups, giving efficiency context. For a 2-param tool, description covers what needs to be known to use it correctly.

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 has 100% coverage with enum for type and description for value. Description adds significant context: examples of valid inputs (e.g., 'AAPL', '0000320193', 'ozempic'), and clarifies that company accepts ticker, CIK, or name. Goes beyond schema basics.

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 tool resolves names to official identifiers for companies and drugs, with examples like 'ticker for...' and 'find the CIK for...'. It distinguishes from siblings like entity_profile and compare_entities by emphasizing it is the first step to get an ID.

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 instructs 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' Lists supported types and what each returns, but does not explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., if ID already known). Provides strong usage 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint all true, and destructiveHint false. Description adds concrete behavior: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, returns ranked list with score/confidence/signal density. No contradiction; enriches understanding.

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 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, includes a practical example in quotes. Every sentence adds value; 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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return format (ranked list with fields). All parameters covered, behavior detailed, and annotations provide safety profile. Complete for a composite 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% with descriptions. Description adds value beyond schema: 'First entry treated as the subject for narrative; rest are competitors' for entities parameter. For models and _apiKey, description reinforces schema. Overall, adds meaningful context on one key parameter.

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 specific verb 'Compare' and resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic). The narrative 'surfaces which is most/least recognized' further clarifies purpose.

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?

Description provides clear scenario: 'competitive AI-marketing audits' with example question. Implicitly suggests not using for single entity (use ai_visibility_check instead). Lacks explicit exclusions but context with sibling tools 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description adds critical behavioral details: fans out across external APIs, partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement may take 5-30s, and sources_failed will list timeouts. 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 slightly lengthy but front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed. Efficient use of parentheses 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 (composite check, multiple external APIs), the description adequately covers all user-facing aspects: inputs, defaults, output structure (summary block, advisories, links, alternatives), and edge cases like partial failures and timeouts. No output schema is needed.

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 about scoped packages being accepted and version defaulting to latest, which is helpful but not essential given schema already covers defaults.

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's a composite check for evaluating npm packages, covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for npm packages and mentioning alternatives for other ecosystems.

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 when to use: when an agent asks about safety, popularity, size, or cost of adding a package. Also provides exclusion criteria (other ecosystems) and fallback behavior, guiding appropriate usage.

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 value by detailing return fields and the next-step workflow, enhancing transparency 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with verb and scope, no redundancy. Every phrase 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 3 params and no output schema, the description fully covers inputs, outputs, and integration with sibling tools. 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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds context that org_id overrides default org, providing slight added value 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 Cupertino GIS open datasets by keyword and lists return fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like query_layer and layer_info by explicitly connecting to 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 implicitly guides usage by specifying the data source and suggesting passing the returned url to query_layer/layer_info. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools but is clear enough.

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. The description adds details on embedding model (BGE-base-en), windowing (500-char overlapping), character limit (200K chars with truncation flag), and return structure (passages with offsets and similarity scores). 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. 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 adequately explains the return format (passages, offsets, scores). It also covers the character cap and truncation behavior. All essential information is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds real-world examples (e.g., 'supply-chain risk') and contextualizes the parameters beyond the schema, enhancing understanding for the agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it performs semantic search inside a fetched record, with specific examples (SEC 10-K, article). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded, which is mentioned explicitly.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use (record too big for prompt) and how it pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded. It also implies when not to use (if record fits in prompt).

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=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: requires OAuth account, SMS with 10/day cap, webhook with signing secret and auto-disable after 10 failures. 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 a single dense paragraph that covers all necessary information. It is efficient but could be improved with bullet points or sections for easier scanning. No wasted sentences.

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, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value (subscription ID). It also covers authentication, delivery details, subscription types, and limitations. The tool is complex with many options, and the description is comprehensive for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds meaning by providing real examples for each type and its parameters, explaining required fields, and detailing delivery channel options beyond the schema descriptions.

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 creates a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream and returns a subscription ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions, unsubscribe, and recent_alerts by focusing on creation.

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 (to subscribe to alerts), prerequisites (Pipeworx OAuth account, phone verification for SMS), and delivery channels. It implies when not to use (e.g., for one-time pulls, use recent_alerts) but does not explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shapes, providing behavioral clarity beyond annotations without 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 well-structured and front-loaded with common queries and purpose. It is slightly verbose but every sentence earns its place, providing clear guidance without excessive 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?

Given the low complexity (1 optional parameter, no required fields, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, and when to use it. Missing details about output format are minor for an onboarding 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% with one optional parameter 'topic'. The description enhances understanding by explaining the effect of omitting it (full spread) and providing examples of focus areas (finance, pharma, etc.), adding value 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 is an onboarding entry point for discovering what questions to ask Pipeworx, listing common user queries and distinguishing it from other tools. It positions itself as the first tool to use when unsure of capabilities.

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 says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not list alternatives 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?

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: ownership enforcement (auth context), row deactivation vs deletion, and preservation of historical events. IdempotentHint=true aligns with description, and destructiveHint=false is explained by 'deactivated (not deleted)'.

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 front-load the action, then provide behavioral nuances. 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?

Explains the final state (deactivated) and impact on historical data. No output schema, but the side effects are well-described. Completely sufficient for a simple one-parameter 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% for the single 'id' parameter. Description adds no new details beyond 'by id', which is adequate. Baseline score 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?

Clear verb ('cancel') and resource ('subscription') with specific identifier 'by id'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by being the inverse action.

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') but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tools. Context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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 destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: returns a verdict, extracted structured form, actual value with citation, percent delta, and specifies the data source (SEC EDGAR + XBRL) and claim type limitations. 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 well-structured, starting with trigger phrases and use cases. It is informative but not overly verbose; each sentence adds value. Minor opportunity to tighten, but overall concise for the information conveyed.

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 has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's purpose, inputs, outputs, supported claim types, and efficiency benefit. The agent has enough information to use it correctly without ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single 'claim' parameter. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by providing example phrasing and clarifying the scope of supported claims (company-financial for US public companies). This helps the agent understand how to formulate the input correctly.

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 that the tool performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific verb 'validate' and resource 'claim'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it replaces multiple sequential calls, making its purpose very clear and unique.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It provides context for when to use (fact-checking) and limits to company-financial claims for US public companies. While it doesn't state when not to use, the context is sufficiently clear.

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