Bioregistry

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), description reveals default model, BYO key model, return structure per model, and combined view.

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 covering function, scoring, model options, and return format with zero waste.

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 covers return values adequately. No gaps for a non-mutating probe 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 100% but description adds usage context: default model for 'models', requirement for '_apiKey' if 'anthropic', and disambiguation purpose for 'context'.

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

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

Description states a specific verb ('probe') and resource ('LLMs for knowledge about business/brand/product/topic') and distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on visibility scoring per model.

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

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

Explicitly lists use cases ('AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') but does not mention when not to use or compare with 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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: the tool routes the question to one of many tools, fills arguments, and returns a structured answer with pipeworx:// citation URIs. This exceeds what annotations alone convey. 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 well-structured with a clear directive at the start ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'), followed by a list of domains and examples. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but it's well-organized and front-loaded.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (routes to 3,436 tools), no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description explains the routing behavior, citation URIs, and provides examples. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and what kind of queries to use it for. Minor lack of explanation about result formats.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% (all 6 parameters documented). The description does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'question' implicitly but the schema already describes it as 'Your question or request in natural language'. The examples in schema provide extra context. Description adds little parameter-specific value.

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 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH for questions about current or historical data' and lists many specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drug data, etc.). It clearly indicates the tool's purpose: routing a natural language question to the appropriate tool among 3,436 sources and returning structured answers with citations. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'search' or other web-based 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 strong guidance on when to use this tool (for factual, structured data queries) and even gives example questions. It implies that web search is less preferred for such queries. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for subjective or non-factual questions), which would make it a 5.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds significant context: extra LLM call cost, refusal reasons (not_in_source, no_tool_match, etc.), and return format {answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason}. 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?

Description is a single paragraph but well-structured, front-loading the key differentiator ('hallucination-resistant answer mode'). Every sentence adds value: behavior, use case, return format, trade-off. Slightly verbose but still concise for the amount of 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?

Despite no output schema, description thoroughly explains return format and all possible refusal reasons. Provides enough context for the agent to understand when to invoke, what to expect, and how this tool differs from sibling. Complete for a high-stakes read 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 multiple aliases documented. Description does not add much beyond schema for this single parameter, but it reinforces that the parameter is a natural language question for the grounded answer. Since baseline is 3 for high coverage, the contextual tie-in justifies a 4.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads. It specifies the core behavior (extracts answer only from tool result, returns explicit refusals) and distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by contrasting the extra LLM call cost and use cases.

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

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

Explicit guidance on when to use ('answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') and when not ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). Lists example domains where invention is unacceptable (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements), providing clear decision criteria.

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 goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) by detailing fan-out behavior, response shapes, resolver contract, parent event extraction, news fallback, safety checks, and closed market handling. No contradiction with annotations. This is excellent disclosure of the tool's internal logic and side effects.

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 labeled sections (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, RESPONSE SHAPES, etc.). The first sentence summarizes the core functionality. While verbose, the detail is necessary given the complexity of the tool. Could be slightly more concise, but still effective.

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

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

The description comprehensively covers all aspects: input, process, response structure, resolver confidence, parent event extraction, news fallback, safety mechanisms, and market status handling. Despite no output schema, the description equips the agent to understand and correctly interpret results, including warnings about low-confidence matches.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for each parameter: depth enum values explained ('quick = 2-3 evidence sources, thorough = full fan-out'), market parameter types clarified, and include_raw default behavior and use cases described. This adds meaningful guidance 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's action: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies the input types (slug, URL, question) and the output (evidence packet + comparison). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges (which focuses on edge detection) and ask_pipeworx (which is general Q&A).

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 lists use cases: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It also warns about low-confidence matches and closed markets. However, it does not compare directly with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

Detailed behavioral context: sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and returning citation URIs. Annotations already indicate safety, but description adds rich specifics.

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

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

Concise yet comprehensive; front-loaded with query examples, no redundant sentences. 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?

For a tool with no output schema, description sufficiently covers returns (paired data + citation URIs), data sources, and behavior, making it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds significant meaning: explains data pulled for each type, provides example values (tickers/CIKs, drug names), and clarifies expected input format beyond enum.

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

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

The description clearly states it performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in a single parallel call, with specific query examples. It distinguishes itself from sequential lookups.

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

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

Explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities' and notes it replaces 8-15 sequential lookups, providing clear when-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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that it returns top-N relevant tools with names, descriptions, and schemas, ready to call directly. This is useful context beyond annotations, though it does not cover potential rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then adds usage guidelines, examples, return details, and a call-to-action. Every sentence contributes meaning 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 the tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (tools with schemas and examples). Combined with annotations and schema, the agent has all necessary context to use this 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% and all parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add new semantics beyond listing aliases, but the schema already defines the query parameter and limit. 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 finds tools by describing a task or data, listing many example domains. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search by positioning as a meta-tool for exploring options rather than getting direct answers.

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 says 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer)', providing 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses that patents via USPTO may soft-fail after May 2025, and that there is a fallback from GDELT to GNews. Also mentions it fans out across multiple sources in parallel, adding behavioral 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?

The description is dense but well-structured: starts with example queries, then lists returned data, then parameter constraints. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (multiple data sources, no output schema), the description adequately explains what is returned, including specific fields and URIs. It also mentions limitations like the patents sunset.

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 practical details: zero-padded CIK format, and reiterates that names are not supported. This is helpful but overlaps with 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 provides a full cross-source profile of US public companies in one call, listing specific data returned (CIK, filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'resolve_entity' by explicitly stating it does not accept names.

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 clarifies that names are not supported, directing users to use 'resolve_entity' first. 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?

Description matches annotations (destructiveHint=true) and adds context about clearing sensitive data. With good annotations, the description need not repeat them; a 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose then usage. No superfluous content.

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?

Simple tool with one parameter and no output schema; description covers purpose, usage, and relationship to siblings completely.

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 description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's description of the 'key' parameter. 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?

Description clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings 'remember' and 'recall' by indicating it is the deletion complement.

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 gives usage scenarios: stale context, done task, clearing sensitive data. Hints at workflow by pairing with remember/recall but doesn't list alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' It also clarifies output is a single text blob ready for site-root deployment. 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 concise, with every sentence adding value. It front-loads the primary action and quickly moves to use cases. No redundant or 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 high schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and output format. It leaves no major gaps for an AI agent to misunderstand.

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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage, specifying defaults and constraints for max_links. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'generate' and clearly identifies the resource 'llms.txt file'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing a unique function: creating an llms.txt for AI crawlers. No sibling tool has a similar 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?

The description explicitly lists three use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, and auditing competitor visibility. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to reiterate safety. It adds value by specifying the return fields and stating that it lists active subscriptions by default, which provides behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

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

Two sentences: first sentence states purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words. Highly 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 list tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No output schema is needed as return fields are described.

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

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

The input schema has full coverage (100%) for the single optional parameter 'include_inactive', with a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply implies active subscriptions but does not elaborate on the 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 clearly states it lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the returned fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe.

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

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

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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

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

Annotations provide no contradiction (all false). Description adds critical behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, doesn't count against tool-call quota, team reads digests daily. Goes 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?

Description is concise (~80 words), well-structured with front-loaded purpose, then usage, then constraints. No redundant or missing 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?

Given no output schema, description fully covers purpose, parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral constraints. It is complete for a feedback tool with clear instructions.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds meaning: explains enum values for 'type', specifies message length (1-2 sentences, 2000 chars) and content guidelines, clarifies 'context' is optional with structural hints.

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 is for providing feedback to the Pipeworx team, specifying four distinct types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and their meanings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all research/utility tools, not feedback channels.

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

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

Explicit guidance on when to use each type: bugs for wrong data, feature/data_gap for missing capabilities, praise for positive experiences. It also includes what not to do (don't paste user prompts) and practical constraints (rate limit, free 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 read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value: derived from CF analytics engine, no PII, caching behavior (5min-1h), and data structure (pack, tool, count). 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?

Well-structured with bullet points for use cases. Front-loaded with purpose. Slightly verbose, but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity.

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

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

No output schema, but description explicitly states what is returned (top tools, top packs, call volume over window). Covers behavior, caching, privacy, and derivation. Complete for a simple informational 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 fully describes the single parameter (window) with enum values and description. Description adds context about trade-offs between shorter and longer windows, which enhances meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 for 100% coverage, extra context earns 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?

Clearly states it returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over recent windows. Differentiates from siblings by focusing on what other AI agents are calling, which is a distinct 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?

Lists three specific use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tool, aligning with agent needs). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the use cases provide 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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds failure behavior (no args fails), partition filter with placeholder logic, semantic anchor for similarity, and response structure, all 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 detailed but somewhat verbose; could benefit from bullet points for the two modes. However, every sentence is informative and front-loaded with the key requirement.

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 response format (opportunities array with fields, partition_check object). It covers input constraints, both modes, filters, and examples, making it 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?

Schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The description enriches with concrete examples (e.g., event slug like 'fed-decision-may-2026') and explains the cross-event scanning for topic, adding value beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes two modes (event and topic) with specific use cases, differentiating it from 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?

It explicitly requires one of event or topic and warns against calling with no args. It recommends event for a specific market and topic for cross-event scanning, explaining when each is appropriate. Could mention when not to use but is otherwise clear.

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 provides extensive behavioral detail beyond annotations, including model families (crypto_price, news_momentum, partition_overround, concentrated_longshot), edge calculation, Kelly fractions, slippage, caching, and diagnostics. 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 very verbose and dense, containing excessive technical detail that could overwhelm an AI agent. While front-loaded with purpose, the length reduces conciseness.

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 response structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, diagnostics) and caching, making it complete for a complex tool with 9 parameters.

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 significant nuance to parameters like min_kelly, slippage_pp, and min_partition_leg_kelly, explaining their impact and recommended settings.

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. The verb 'scan' and resource 'Polymarket markets' are specific and distinct from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage.

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 it is built for discovering betting opportunities without paging through hundreds of markets, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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

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

The description adds significant value beyond annotations by detailing response structure, safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment), and conditions under which spreads are invalid. It also explains how differing bet shapes affect results, which annotations do not cover.

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 but front-loads the core purpose and uses structured formatting (bold, parenthetical lists) to organize information. Every sentence adds value, though it is longer than strictly necessary, justifying a 4 rather than 5.

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 response structure, spreads, and safety fields. It covers key behavioral details but could benefit from a brief example or explicit JSON format hint. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between topic and explicit parameters, including how explicit parameters override the topic-mapped side. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions, which list values but not the interaction.

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 computes 'cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question,' using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on cross-venue comparison rather than single-venue arbitrage.

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 outlines two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit pairing) and provides guidance on when spreads are meaningful, including warnings about compatibility issues and temporal alignment. It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools but offers clear context for appropriate use.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, covering safety. Description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'metadata', which is vague. With annotations, the bar is lower; a score of 3 is appropriate as description does not contradict but adds minimal value.

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?

Extremely short but under-specified. 'Prefix metadata' is not a complete sentence and fails to convey necessary information. Conciseness should not sacrifice content.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description should at least hint at the purpose. It does not explain what 'metadata' includes or how it differs from similar tools, leaving the agent underinformed.

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% with parameter 'prefix' having examples. Description adds nothing beyond schema. Baseline is 3 per guidelines.

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 'Prefix metadata' is vague and lacks a verb. It implies the tool provides metadata for a prefix but does not clearly state an action like 'retrieve' or 'show'. It also does not distinguish from sibling 'prefixes' which likely lists all prefixes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include 'prefixes' (plural) which likely lists available prefixes, but description does not indicate that this tool is for detailed metadata of a specific prefix.

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 destructiveHint=false, so the description's claim of 'Paginate' aligns and adds no contradiction. The description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond what annotations provide, but it is consistent.

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

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

The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it omits essential details about parameters and the concept of 'prefixes'. It sacrifices substance for brevity, leading to under-specification.

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 presence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description lacks context about what 'prefixes' are, how pagination works, and how this tool differs from 'prefix'. It leaves significant gaps for effective agent 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters. It relies solely on schema examples, which is insufficient for proper 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 the tool's action ('Paginate') and resource ('all prefixes'), making its purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'prefix' (singular), which might be for a specific prefix.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'prefix' or other listing tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: listing all keys when key is omitted, scoping to an identifier. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information. 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 the tool is simple. The description explains both modes (retrieve by key, list all keys) and scoping. It could mention return type 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% with a clear description for the single parameter. The description echoes the schema's point about omitting key to list all, adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a saved value or lists all keys, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'forget'. It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('value previously saved').

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 tells when to use the tool ('to look up context the agent stored earlier') and provides examples. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral details: it explains that mark_read flagging updates read status (so subsequent calls return newer events), and it mentions the return fields (source, citation_uri, payload). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing filtering, mark_read, and polling suitability. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy. It is exceptionally concise 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?

Despite no output schema, the description notes that each alert carries source, citation_uri, and payload, giving the agent a return-format expectation. It covers usage context (polling, alternative endpoint) and all parameters. The only minor gap is absence of error handling or rate limits, but overall it is quite 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds value by providing examples (e.g., filter type 'sec_8k'), explaining the mark_read effect, and clarifying that since expects an ISO timestamp. This contextualizes the parameters beyond their 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 pulls fired events from a subscription feed and returns alerts with source, citation_uri, and payload. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_subscriptions (which lists subscriptions) and search tools by specifying it returns the most recent alerts from the persisted feed.

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 polling works fine and provides an alternative REST endpoint for scripts/dashboards. It implicitly guides usage by explaining filtering options and the mark_read feature. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly to alternative tools like search.

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=true, etc.), the description adds key behavioral details: fans out to multiple sources, fallback from GDELT to GNews, USPTO soft-fail, returns citation URIs, and mentions parallelism. 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 informative but slightly lengthy; however, every sentence adds value. It is well-structured with common queries first, then explanation of behavior and contrast with sibling.

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 complex tool with multiple data sources, fallbacks, and no output schema, the description covers the return structure, parameter formats, and important caveats (USPTO sunset). It is complete enough 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%, and the description adds significant value: acceptable formats for `since` with examples, typical recommendation, and explanation of `value` (ticker or CIK). It clarifies `type` only supports 'company'.

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 defines the tool as a change feed for a company over a time window, using specific verbs like 'change feed' and distinguishing it from entity_profile. It addresses common user queries like 'What's new with X'.

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 user asks about 'what's new', 'latest', etc.) and when not to use (use entity_profile for static profile). Provides clear alternatives and 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 provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds beyond: key-value scoped by identifier, persistence differences (authenticated persistent, anonymous 24h). 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then behavioral details. Every sentence adds value. 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 tool with 2 string params and no output schema, the description covers usage, behavior, pairing with recall/forget, and auth scoping. Complete and clear.

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

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

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds naming conventions and value types ('findings, addresses, preferences, notes'), but schema already describes key and value. 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 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'recall' and 'forget' by being the store operation.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward', provides concrete examples, and contrasts with 'recall' and 'forget' for retrieval and deletion.

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, making the safety profile clear. The description adds no new behavioral traits (e.g., caching, error handling), but 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without extraneous content.

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 output schema exists, the description is adequate for a simple tool. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools and does not specify input validation or output format details.

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 an example. The description adds value by stating the output ('provider URL'), which is not in the schema, enriching the agent's understanding of the parameter's purpose.

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 (resolve) and the object (CURIE to provider URL). It is specific and distinguishes from general-purpose tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'resolve_entity'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'resolve_entity', 'prefix', or 'prefixes'. The description fails to provide context for tool selection.

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, establishing a safe, non-destructive profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool cascades through several lookup endpoints internally, replacing 2-3 manual lookups. It also specifies return fields (ticker, CIK, company name, RxCUI, ingredient, brand) and citation URIs. 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 well-structured with a brief introductory sentence followed by bullet-like details for each type. It front-loads common query examples. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'returns' for each type) and the phrase '— using resolve_entity replaces 2-3 manual lookups' could be integrated more succinctly.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers return values (ticker, CIK, company name, citation URI for company; RxCUI, ingredient, brand, citation URI for drug) and explains internal behavior (cascading lookups). It addresses all key aspects an agent needs to invoke and interpret results correctly, considering the two entity types and input variations.

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

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

Schema covers both parameters (type, value) with 100% descriptions, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains what each type returns (e.g., company returns ticker + 10-digit CIK + company name + citation URI; drug returns RxCUI + ingredient + brand + citation URI), details acceptable input formats (ticker, CIK, or company name for company; brand or generic name for drug), and mentions auto-disambiguation for company. This goes well 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 starts with concrete examples of queries the tool handles ('what's the ticker for…'), clearly states it resolves a user-spoken name to a canonical identifier, and distinguishes from siblings by stating 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It specifies the supported entity types (company, drug) and what each returns, making the 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?

The description explicitly instructs 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which provides clear context for when to invoke this tool. It lists supported types and hints at alternatives by mentioning that resolve_entity replaces 2-3 manual lookups, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific sibling tools as 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world. Description adds that it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks results, and returns score, confidence, signal density. No contradiction. Transparency is good for a read-only aggregation tool.

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 action, no fluff. 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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It also mentions the underlying tool and covers all necessary aspects.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining the first entity as 'subject for narrative' and that workers-ai is free default. This supplements the schema well.

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 (compare, probes, ranks), resource (AI visibility across entities), and distinguishes from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check and compare_entities. It provides a concrete use case for competitive AI-marketing audits.

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 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and implies when to use it vs. ai_visibility_check. It could be more explicit about 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral details: composite multi-source call, bundlephobia measurement delay (5-30s), and graceful degradation with sources_failed field, exceeding annotation coverage.

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

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

Concise yet comprehensive: front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage, behavior, limitations, and return structure. 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully details the return fields (summary block, advisories, links, alternative versions) and explains partial failure handling. Complete for a read-only query 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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions. Description adds that scoped packages are accepted for 'package' and confirms default behavior for 'version'. While schema coverage is high, the extra clarification on scoped packages is helpful.

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 it is a composite check for evaluating npm packages, specifying the exact data sources (deps.dev and bundlephobia) and what fields are returned. It distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling 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?

Explicitly tells when to use: for questions about safety, popularity, size impact. Also notes ecosystem limitation (NPM only) and graceful partial failure behavior, providing 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?

Annotations fully declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows it is safe and idempotent. The description adds the specific behavior of 'substring search over prefixes', which is not captured by annotations. However, it does not disclose performance, case sensitivity, or expected response format.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase with no superfluous text. It is front-loaded with the core action. While lacking detail, it earns top marks for brevity and structure.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to document return values. However, it fails to explain input parameters or provide sufficient context for the tool's behavior. The description is incomplete for a tool with only 2 parameters and a specific search operation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'query' or 'limit' parameters. The agent must infer their purpose from the tool name and sparse description, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'Substring search over prefixes' clearly indicates the tool performs substring matching on a specific resource type (prefixes). It distinguishes from siblings like 'prefix' and 'prefixes' by specifying the search operation. However, it could elaborate on what constitutes a 'prefix' in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'prefix' or 'prefixes'), nor are there any usage constraints or prerequisites mentioned. The description does not help an agent choose this tool over 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, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral details: truncation at 200K chars, embedding model (BGE-base-en), 500-char overlapping windows, cosine similarity, and flagging of truncated inputs. 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?

Three focused sentences: first states purpose, second provides usage guidance, third adds technical details. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description explains return values (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores). Covers use cases, paired tool, limits, and technical behavior. Complete for a search tool of moderate complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context: the 'text' is the document to search, 'query' is natural language with examples, and 'limit' controls passage count. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by referencing 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' and contrasting with fetching the whole document.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt,' and explains the benefit of saving context. It also suggests pairing with 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' for grounding over relevant passages, providing clear when-to-use and 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 idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds value by detailing delivery channels, SMS caps, and verification requirements, exceeding what annotations provide.

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

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by consolidating type details.

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

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

While it covers return values, delivery, and verification, it misses explicit coverage of the 'patent_grant' type. Given no output schema, this omission makes it slightly incomplete.

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 enriches parameter semantics with concrete examples (e.g., items:['5.02'] for officer change). However, the description omits 'patent_grant' from its main list, creating a minor gap.

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 creates a subscription and returns an ID, but it omits the 'patent_grant' type listed in the schema, which is a minor inconsistency that reduces specificity.

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 context on when to use (requires OAuth account) and explains each type's use case, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like list_subscriptions or other read-only 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?

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing ownership enforcement and the deactivation vs. deletion behavior. Annotations already mark it as idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds critical context about side effects and data preservation.

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. The first sentence states the action and key constraint, the second explains the behavioral nuance. Perfectly front-loaded.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the outcome (deactivation) and how users can still access historical data via recent_alerts. No gaps remain.

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

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

The only parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema (type, description, requirement). The description mentions 'by id' but adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, 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 action ('Cancel a subscription by id') and the resource ('subscription'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions. It also adds specifics about ownership enforcement and deactivation behavior, making the 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?

The description explicitly states ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and explains the deactivation behavior ('deactivated not deleted'), providing both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It also cross-references recent_alerts for historical events.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context about internal processing (NL parsing, entity resolution, data lookup, numeric comparison) and describes the return format (verdict, extracted form, actual value with citation, percent delta), without contradicting 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 verbose but well-structured, front-loading with trigger phrases. Every sentence adds value, though a minor trim could improve conciseness.

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 a single parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's return (verdict, etc.) and internal process. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Only one parameter 'claim' with 100% schema description coverage. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose with examples, but adds little beyond the schema's description. 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 does natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific examples of natural language triggers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, and specifies the domain (company-financial claims for public US companies).

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 advises use whenever the agent needs to check factual correctness of a user statement, and specifies the supported domain. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear. It also mentions that it replaces multiple calls, providing guidance on efficiency.

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