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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it returns category-bucketed example questions drawn from a live catalog, includes the exact tool + argument shape, and explains how omitting vs providing a topic changes the output. This gives the agent a clear model of the tool's 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 example user prompts, then clearly states its purpose, output, and usage. Every sentence earns its place—there is no filler or redundancy. Despite being long, it is dense with useful information, structured logically from intent to behavior to invocation.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (category-bucketed example questions with tool + argument shape) and gives sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. Combined with the annotations and schema, this provides a complete picture 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% for the single optional 'topic' parameter, and the schema already lists all allowed values and the omit behavior. The description provides examples ('finance', 'pharma', 'betting') but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly identifies this as the onboarding entry point for agents, stating it returns category-bucketed example questions with the exact tool and argument shape. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as the FIRST tool to use when unfamiliar with Pipeworx, unlike discover_tools or 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?

The description provides explicit usage instructions: 'Call with no arguments for the full spread, or pass topic to focus' and 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you.' This gives clear when-to-use context and differentiates from alternative tools like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools.

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