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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds meaningful context about the return structure (category-bucketed example questions with exact tool + argument shape) and the live catalog source. It doesn't contradict annotations and enriches understanding of behavior.

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 tool's purpose and key usage guidance, making it approachable. The list of example queries is useful but somewhat verbose, and the single-dense-paragraph structure could be tightened. Still, every section contributes to understanding.

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 an onboarding tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, how to use it, and when to use it. It also mentions the live catalog and links to related tools, making it complete for its role.

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

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

The input schema already provides full coverage for `topic` (including the allowed values and default behavior). The description only adds a few illustrative examples ("finance", "pharma", "betting") and restates the omission guidance, adding marginal 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 explicitly states the tool's role as "the onboarding entry point for an agent that just connected and wants to know what is worth asking" and lists concrete example queries. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities) and positioning this as the first stop.

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

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

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: "Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools." It also explains how to customize via the optional `topic` parameter, including omission for a broad overview.

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