Dailymed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is conveyed. The description adds valuable behavioral context: default model is free, Anthropic requires BYO key and you pay directly, and returns format per-model with raw_response. No contradictions.

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

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

Three sentences: first states core function, second adds cost and model details, third lists use cases. No fluff, key information front-loaded. Excellent 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?

No output schema, but description covers return structure (per-model fields + combined view). It explains default vs optional models and cost implications. Lacks details on error handling or behavior for unknown entities, but sufficient for a straightforward 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides extra context beyond schema: it mentions default model for 'models' parameter and ties '_apiKey' to Anthropic. It also explains that 'context' helps disambiguate. This adds value, justifying a 4.

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

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

Description clearly states it probes LLMs about an entity and returns visibility scores per model. It specifies the default model and optional Anthropic probing. Although not explicitly differentiating from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence, the specific verb 'probe' and the mention of per-model scores with a combined view make the purpose distinct and clear.

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 explicit use cases: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. It also explains when to use the Anthropic model (if you have a key). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternative tools for related tasks, slight gap.

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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it routes to the right tool, fills arguments, returns structured answers with stable citation URIs, and works on every tier with one fast call. 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 comprehensive but slightly long. It is well-structured with bolded guidance, clear sections, and examples. Front-loaded with priority and alternatives. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeated examples) but overall effective.

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

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

Given the complexity (4,774 tools, 1242 sources) and no output schema, the description explains the return value (structured answer with citations), usage scenarios, and provides examples. Fully sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities and limitations.

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%, describing the 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description does not add much beyond that, but it provides examples. Baseline 3, but the thorough examples justify a 4.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool routes questions to one of 4,774 tools across verified sources, returns structured answers with citation URIs. It distinguishes from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research as alternatives for specific needs.

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 detailed guidance on when to use (factual questions about entities, events, numbers) and when to step up (ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant, deep_research for multi-part). Examples illustrate 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?

Discloses exact return format with success/refusal structures, and the extra LLM call cost, adding context beyond annotations like readOnlyHint.

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 front-loaded key info, but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place despite length.

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?

Completely explains behavior, refusal reasons, and use cases for a complex tool with no output schema; return format is fully described.

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

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

Schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description reinforces that 'question' is the main parameter but adds no new semantic detail 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 defines the tool as a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, distinguishing it from its sibling 'ask_pipeworx' by emphasizing extraction from tool results only.

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 (for quoted/cited/acted-on answers) and when to prefer 'ask_pipeworx' (casual lookups), also notes cost trade-off.

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

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

Description extensively covers behavioral traits beyond annotations: low-confidence short-circuit, closed market handling, wide spread tradeability, resolution-rule risk parsing, and fan-out logic. 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 well-structured with clear sections (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, RESPONSE SHAPES, etc.) and front-loaded with core purpose. However, it is lengthy and could be more concise by trimming some verbose 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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (result.market, result.analysis, result.evidence) and covers edge cases, safety checks, and resolution contracts. It is fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds examples and context but does not significantly extend parameter semantics beyond what is already in 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?

Description clearly states the tool researches Polymarket bets by pulling Pipeworx data, accepts multiple input formats (slug, URL, question text), and outlines the process. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by specifying use cases like 'should I bet on 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?

Description provides explicit use cases ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y') and gives operational guidance (e.g., inspect market_match_confidence). However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or 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 provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years (e.g., AAPL Sep), and sorting by primary metric. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with common query phrases and key instruction ('ALWAYS PREFER'). It packs substantial detail into a few sentences, but could be slightly more concise. However, the structure is logical: purpose, usage preference, type-specific behavior, result format, and efficiency claim.

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 covers input semantics and behavior well. It explains return data (paired data + citation URIs) and efficiency claim (replaces 8-15 lookups). Could mention that output includes specific financial fields for companies, but overall sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-defined in schema. The description adds significant value by explaining the difference between company and drug types, what data each pulls, and constraints (min 2, max 5 items). It also provides example values like tickers and drug names, enhancing understanding 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 uses specific verbs like 'compare', 'rank', and 'head-to-head' and clearly states it handles side-by-side comparisons of 2-5 companies or drugs. It provides concrete query examples ('X vs Y', 'which is bigger') and explicitly distinguishes itself from sequential single-pack lookups, which differentiates it from sibling tools like entity_profile.

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

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

The description explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also clarifies what data each entity type returns (financials for companies, adverse events for drugs) and how results are sorted, helping the agent decide which tool to invoke for comparison 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?

The description reveals significant behavioral details beyond annotations: account requirements, plan tiers, parallel tool execution (4,774 tools), findings packet structure (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, citations, gaps[]), and expected latency (15-60s). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, front-loading the critical account requirement. While every sentence adds value, the length could be slightly reduced without losing information. The structure flows logically from prerequisites to behavior to usage guidance.

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 covers return format (findings packet with citations and gaps), prerequisites (account, plan tier), limitations (not for breaking news), and expected time. This level of detail compensates for the missing output schema and makes the tool's behavior fully transparent.

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 for both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the depth enum values ('quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8') and reinforces that the question can be broad/multi-part, which the schema already implies but the description contextualizes.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as a multi-source research aggregator across 1242 structured data sources, explicitly distinguishing it from siblings like ask_pipeworx and sibling tools. It uses specific verbs ('decomposes', 'routes', 'returns') and describes the result 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?

Explicitly states when to use (broad/multi-part structured data questions) and when not to use (breaking news, single lookups, colloquial current news). It names the alternative ask_pipeworx for different scenarios and mentions the account requirement with tier limitations ('thorough needs a paid plan').

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 valuable behavioral info beyond annotations (idempotent, read-only) by explaining output format: 'top-N most relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas (with curated examples)' and that results are ready to call directly. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Two well-structured sentences: first sentence states purpose and domains, second sentence describes output and usage. No fluff, 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?

No output schema, but description fully explains return value (names, descriptions, schemas). With 6 parameters (all aliases) and clear usage context, description is complete for 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 descriptions for all parameters. Description adds value by explaining query accepts natural language and listing aliases, but schema already does most of the work. Baseline 3, plus examples and alias clarification push 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?

Description clearly states the tool discovers tools by describing data or task, lists many domains, and distinguishes from sibling search tools by being a meta-tool to be called first.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools and want to see the option set', providing clear guidance on when to use and giving examples of 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds detailed behavioral context, including exactly what data is returned, limitations (patents soft-failing), and that names are not supported. 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 front-loaded with example queries and structured with a list of returned data. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence is informative given the tool's complexity. Could be slightly more concise, but overall well-organized.

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 (multi-source aggregation) and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it lists all return fields, sources, limitations (patents soft-fail), and necessary input format. It provides sufficient context for an agent 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% and the description repeats the same information for both parameters (type enum, value as ticker or CIK). While the description provides examples, it adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, 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 provides a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call,' listing specific data sources and return fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from chaining multiple individual lookups and mentions limitations like unsupported names, directing users to the sibling tool 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?

The description explicitly advises 'ALWAYS PREFER' this tool for 'holistic view' over chaining single-pack lookups, and explains when not to use (names) with an alternative (resolve_entity). It also notes the soft-failure of patents, providing clear 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 already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds 'clear sensitive data' context but no additional behavioral details 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 with no wasted words, front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter deletion tool with clear usage context and sibling pairing.

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%, and the tool description just says 'by key', adding little beyond the schema's 'Memory key to delete'.

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 'Delete', specific resource 'memory', and method 'by key'. Distinguishes from siblings 'remember' and 'recall'.

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 (stale context, task done, clear sensitive data) and pairs 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?

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool fetches the page, extracts specific elements (title, description, key links), and emits a standard markdown format. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) which already indicate safety and idempotency. 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 a single paragraph of three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently conveys purpose, output format, and use cases without redundancy. However, it could be slightly tighter by merging the output sentence with the action.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description explains the output format ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt') and the extraction process. It covers what the tool produces and how it works, which is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. No missing critical information.

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

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

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'url' is already described as 'Full URL of the site'). The mention of 'fetches the page' is implied by the tool's purpose, so no extra semantic value is added.

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 verbs ('generate', 'fetches', 'extracts', 'emits') and clearly identifies the resource ('llms.txt file') and its purpose for AI crawlers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on generating the standard llms.txt format, which is a distinct operation compared to 'ai_visibility_check' or 'scan_competitor_ai_presence'.

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 lists three explicit use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitors. This provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention any alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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=false. The description adds that the tool returns 'Full SPL metadata + sections,' but this is not a significant behavioral disclosure beyond what annotations provide.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with front-loaded key information. Every word earns its place without verbosity.

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, annotations cover safety, and only one parameter with full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It could mention that the tool is read-only and idempotent, but annotations already handle that.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with set_id described as 'DailyMed setId UUID.' The description merely repeats that it uses set_id, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves full SPL metadata and specific sections (e.g., dosage, warnings) by set_id. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_drugs which search for drugs.

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

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

The description implies use when a set_id is known and comprehensive drug info is needed. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_drugs for finding set_ids.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns 'class codes and display names', providing expected return format. 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates core functionality.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (no required params, output schema exists, rich annotations), the description is complete. It covers purpose, filtering, and return content.

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. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of type values (EPC, MoA, PE, CS) beyond the schema's list, enhancing 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 verb 'list', the resource 'pharmacologic drug-class reference entries from DailyMed', and specifies optional filters (class_code or class type). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_drugs and get_drug by focusing on drug classes.

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

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

The description explains when to use this tool (to list drug-class entries with optional filters) but does not provide explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. However, the context of sibling tools implies this is the appropriate tool for listing classes.

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, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as pagination behavior or scope of labels.

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 short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary detail. Under-specification for a tool with 3 parameters makes it insufficient, not genuinely 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 lack of parameter explanations and no context about pagination or filtering, the description is incomplete despite the presence of an output schema. The tool has moderate complexity (3 params, required param), and the description fails to cover essential usage 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'drug name' implicitly in the sentence but does not describe the 'page' or 'pagesize' parameters or their roles. This is a critical 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 the tool lists labels that mention a drug name, which is specific and aligns with the name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_drugs' or 'get_drug', which could also involve drug 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contexts. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the 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, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds value by specifying return fields and the parameter's effect, 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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no extraneous 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?

Without an output schema, the description provides the return fields, which is helpful. The single parameter is explained. The description is complete for a straightforward list tool, though an output schema would be ideal.

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

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

The schema describes include_inactive as 'Include cancelled subscriptions'. The description adds context that the default returns active subscriptions, enhancing understanding 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 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with specific verb and resource, and lists the returned fields, distinguishing it from siblings like subscribe and unsubscribe.

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

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

Explicit guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel' directly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives, and the parameter include_inactive adds context for viewing cancelled subscriptions.

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 safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). Description adds behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, doesn't count against quota. No contradiction.

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

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

Description is concise and well-structured: first states purpose, then usage guidance, then constraints. 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 feedback tool, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, parameter details, rate limiting, and quota impact. No output schema is needed because feedback submission is fire-and-forget. 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% so baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining the enum options, providing guidance for message content (be specific, 1-2 sentences, 2000 chars max), and clarifying the nested context object is optional. This enhances understanding 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?

Clearly states the tool sends feedback about bugs, missing features, data gaps, or praise to the Pipeworx team. Distinguishes from sibling tools which are research, search, and utility functions.

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

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

Explicitly tells when to use for each feedback type, provides guidance on content (describe in terms of tools/packs, don't paste end-user prompt), and notes rate limits and 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 (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) are complemented by detail on data origin ('CF analytics-engine'), privacy ('no PII'), and caching ('cached 5min-1h'). 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then use cases in a clear list, then technical details. Every sentence serves a purpose with zero redundancy. Ideal length.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers functionality, return data, caching, and use cases. No missing information for an agent to decide or invoke 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% for the single parameter (window) with enum and description. The description adds interpretive value beyond schema: 'shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand.' This helps agents choose appropriately.

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 verbs ('returns') and clearly defines the resource: 'top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window' with time options (24h, 7d, 30d). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ask_pipeworx' and 'discover_tools' by focusing on trending/aggregate data rather than direct queries or discovery.

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: (1) discovering hot data sources, (2) confirming canonical tool choice, (3) assessing use-case alignment. It also explains window trade-offs ('shorter windows surface...; longer windows show steady-state'). Absent is an explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the guidance is strong.

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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, confirming safe read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context: it performs monotonicity and partition checks, filters placeholders, computes fill checks against live CLOB depth, and specifies conditions for not trading. 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 with clear sections for each mode and additional details (semantic anchor, partition filter, fill check). However, it is quite long and could be slightly more concise; some details like the fill check might be better placed in a separate description or tool. Still, front-loaded with key 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 complexity (multiple modes, filters, fill check) and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: explains responses (opportunities[] with fields), behavior in each mode, and references sibling tool for sizing. It is moderately complete but could benefit from a brief example response or a note on error handling.

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%. The description significantly adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains what each argument does, provides example inputs (e.g., event slug 'fed-decision-may-2026'), and describes the response structure despite no output schema. It compensates for the lack of output schema by detailing the return fields.

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 purpose: finding arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It clearly distinguishes three modes (no args for trending scan, event for single-event, topic for cross-event) 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: 'Call with NO args for a trending_scan... pass event for the strongest per-event partition_check, or topic for a themed cross-event scan.' It recommends event mode for specific markets and notes that cross-event mode catches patterns missed by single-event scans. It also advises using 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 provides extensive behavioral context beyond what annotations offer. It details model families, filtering knobs, caching ('Cached 1h at the KV level'), response structure including diagnostics and fed_note, and explains how each segment works. This far exceeds the minimal readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint 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-organized with clear sections (model families, knobs, response structure). Every sentence carries specific detail. While not ultra-concise, the length is justified by the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 3 segments, diagnostics). It front-loads the core purpose in the first two 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return structure, including top-level by_segment, fed_candidates/fed_note, and _diagnostics. It specifies every field carried by opportunities (edge_pp_net, kelly_fraction, market liquidity, spread, volume, 24h-move warning) and explains filter knobs. No gaps remain for an agent to understand inputs and outputs.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters as 'TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS' and explaining their interplay (e.g., min_liquidity / max_spread_pp drop opportunities where edge isn't realizable). This extra context justifies a score above baseline.

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 opens with a clear verb ('Scan') and resource ('top Polymarket markets') and specifies the tool's unique value: 'return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price'. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like 'polymarket_arbitrage' by focusing on model-driven edge discovery rather than 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 states the tool is 'Built for "what should I bet on today"' and explains the three segments model_driven, structural_arbitrage, concentrated_longshot, which implicitly guides use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over its siblings (e.g., vs polymarket_arbitrage) or provide '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 indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds transparency about data source (daily snapshots), response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), and limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes not intraday). 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 but front-loaded with the core purpose and question. It uses structured bullet points for response fields, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'days' constraints). 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?

Without an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates with their subfields), limitations (history depth, decay calculation), and context. It is fully adequate for an AI agent to use.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description reiterates defaults and constraints (e.g., max 30) and explains 'window' as snapshot family, adding minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly defines the tool as 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' using daily snapshots, answering the specific question about edge longevity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges (raw snapshots) by focusing on time-series analysis.

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 assess edge age and decay, differentiating fresh vs old edges) and provides context for interpreting results. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions but implicitly contrasts with snapshot 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral details: it is a simulation/check, returns verdicts (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), walks the order book ladder, and explains the risk of partial fills in basket mode. 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 lengthy but well-structured with clear sections (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, USE THIS). Every sentence provides necessary context for a complex tool. Slightly verbose but justifiably so because of the complexity of the tool's dual-mode behavior.

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 comprehensively lists all return fields for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict; and theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg fill detail, thin_legs[], max_clean_notional_usd, forced_directional_risk). It also covers edge cases and risks, making it complete for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant context beyond the schema. For example, it clarifies how size_usd is interpreted differently in single-market vs basket mode (spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), and explains the default for side in basket mode (auto based on partition sum). This adds 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and explicitly tells when to use it relative to sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500') and warns against partial basket fills leading to unhedged positions, which is the dominant loss mode. It also explains that theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable.

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 by detailing two modes, response fields (leg-by-leg prices, top_spreads_pp), and safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped counters). It explains edge cases like non-equivalent bet shapes and temporal misalignment. This provides a complete behavioral model. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS) and front-loaded with the core purpose. While longer than some, every sentence adds necessary detail for correct use. Some redundancy could be trimmed but overall it is efficient.

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

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

Given the complexity of the tool (no output schema, three parameters), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the response fields, safety fields, and edge cases thoroughly. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results without needing additional documentation.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by clarifying the two modes, providing example values for topic, and explaining the override behavior for explicit parameters. It goes beyond mere repetition of 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 computes cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on cross-venue comparison. The two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers) are clearly outlined, and the response structure is explained.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool and its limitations, such as the rarity of real tradeable spreads and the commonality of compatibility_warnings. It explains the safety fields that help the agent interpret results. However, it does not directly contrast with sibling tools or specify 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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds scoping details and the behavior of listing all keys when key is omitted, providing 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and usage, with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, scoping, and complementary tools 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with description for the single optional parameter. Description doesn't add new information beyond what's in the schema, 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 verb (Retrieve/list) and resource (values saved via remember, or all keys), and distinguishes from siblings like remember and forget by specifying the complementary actions.

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

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

Provides explicit context: 'Use to look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch.' Mentions scoping and pairing with remember/forget. While it doesn't state when not to use, the guidance is sufficient for a simple retrieval 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?

Description states mark_read:true flags events read, which is a write operation. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, contradicting this mutation. Score 1 due to annotation 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?

Concise four-sentence description, front-loaded with purpose. 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?

No output schema but description covers return fields, polling suitability, and alternative access. Adequately complete for a retrieval tool with good annotations, though output schema would further enhance.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds meaningful context: explains the effect of mark_read on subsequent calls, and enumerates filter behavior. Adds value beyond schema.

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

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

Clearly states 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed' with specific verb and resource, and mentions return fields. Distinguishes from siblings like list_subscriptions and recent_changes implicitly.

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

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

Provides context for polling and alternative API endpoint, but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare to sibling tools like recent_changes.

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 cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the fan-out to multiple sources, soft-fail for USPTO due to API sunset, and fallback patterns. 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 a single paragraph but is efficiently front-loaded with usage examples and packs detailed information about sources, fallbacks, and return structure without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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

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

Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, multiple external sources), the description provides complete context: explains data sources, fallback logic, return structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs). No output schema exists, but description covers return format sufficiently.

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: explains `since` accepts ISO date or relative shorthand with examples and suggests typical usage ('Use '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring'). For `type`, it clarifies only 'company' is supported. This adds 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's purpose: providing a change feed for a company by aggregating SEC filings, news, and patents. It uses specific verbs like 'Fans out' and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'entity_profile'.

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

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use examples ('What's new with X', etc.) and when-not-to-use ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile'). It also explains fallback behavior between GDELT and GNews, providing clear context for 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 cover safety and idempotence. Description adds specific behavioral details such as up to 100 results, ordering by update date descending, and data source (DailyMed/NLM), 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 concise sentences front-loaded with purpose and usage context. No redundant information; every word 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?

With an output schema present, description does not need to explain return values. It provides purpose, limit, ordering, and source. Complete for a single-parameter, read-only 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% and describes limit parameter with range and default. Description mentions 'up to 100 results' but does not add new semantics beyond the schema. 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?

Description clearly states it returns recent FDA Structured Product Labels from DailyMed, ordered by update date descending. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_drugs or get_drug by focusing on newly revised labeling.

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 explicitly notes usefulness for tracking newly revised drug labeling, providing clear context. It does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the purpose is clear and distinct from 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 indicate idempotent and non-destructive; description adds persistence details (authenticated vs anonymous) beyond annotations, though overwrite behavior is implicit.

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 four sentences, each serving a purpose; front-loaded with core action and usage context, 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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, scoping, and pairing thoroughly.

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 describes both parameters well (100% coverage), so description adds little extra semantics; baseline 3 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?

Description clearly states verb (save) and resource (key-value memory), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools 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 says when to use ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and mentions alternative tools 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 (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) already indicate safety; description adds internal cascading lookup behavior and citation URIs returned, enriching transparency 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?

Well-structured with examples first, then detailed breakdown per type. Slightly verbose but 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?

Explains return values (ticker, CIK, RxCUI, etc.) and citation URIs; covers main use cases given 2 parameters and no output schema. Missing error handling but acceptable for a resolution 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 description adds examples for each parameter (e.g., ticker, CIK, brand name) and mentions auto-disambiguation for company type, beyond basic 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 resolves user-spoken names to canonical identifiers needed by other tools, with concrete examples and differentiation from siblings via 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need 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 advises using this tool first when an ID is needed, and details supported entity types. Does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context provides strong guidance.

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

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

Annotations already provide safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). The description adds valuable behavioral details: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and returns score, confidence, signal density. 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?

Three concise, substantive sentences: first states purpose, second explains mechanism, third gives use case and output. Front-loaded with key action verb. 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?

Despite lacking output schema, the description explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Covers internal process (probing with ai_visibility_check) and use case, though lacks error handling or rate limit details which annotations partially address.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The main description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only providing a high-level overview rather than deeper parameter meaning.

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 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side' using specific verbs (compare, probes, ranks) and identifies the resource (AI visibility). It distinguishes from sibling tool ai_visibility_check which likely handles single entities, and mentions internal use of ai_visibility_check.

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 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and implies usage for multiple entities, but does not explicitly contrast with single-entity tool ai_visibility_check or other comparison tools like compare_entities.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses important behaviors: composite calls across multiple services, partial failures degrade gracefully, and bundlephobia's first measurement on a new version can take 5-30 seconds, with sources_failed listing timeouts. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and gradually adds detail. While slightly long, each sentence contributes value. It efficiently covers use case, return format, and limitations without repetition.

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 lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure: a summary block with specific fields, per-advisory detail, links, and alternative versions. This provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what to expect from 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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by noting that scoped packages like '@types/node' are accepted for the package parameter and that the version parameter defaults to the latest published version when omitted.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a composite check for deciding whether to add an npm package, specifying the data sources (deps.dev and bundlephobia) and the types of information gathered (license, advisories, bundle size, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on npm packages and mentioning future plans 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 tells when to use the tool: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me."' It also provides exclusions: 'NPM ecosystem only in v1' and directs users to other tools for non-npm packages: 'PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly.'

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 no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination, rate limits) beyond confirming it is a search. With annotations present, the bar is lower, so 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?

A single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the action, and no wasted words. Perfectly concise for a search tool.

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 full input schema and existing output schema, the description covers the essential: what can be searched. It could mention that results are structured product labels, but that's almost implicit. No critical missing information.

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 all parameters are documented. The description merely lists parameter types without adding meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Search'), the resource ('Structured Product Labels'), and the searchable fields (name, ANDA/NDA, NDC, RxCUI). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_drug' (single record) and 'list_labels_for_drug_name' (specific 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?

The description explicitly lists the combination of identifiers for search but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives. It implies usage context but lacks exclusion 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?

Discloses technical details beyond annotations: embedding model (BGE-base-en), windowing (500-char overlapping), character cap (200K) with truncation flag, and output 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?

The description is tightly written with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core purpose, provides usage guidance in the middle, and adds technical details at the end. Every sentence adds value.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, input semantics, usage context, technical behavior, and output format. It also references a sibling tool for integration.

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 three parameters. The description adds context beyond schema: clarifies that 'text' is a previously fetched document, gives example queries for 'query', and specifies default for 'limit'. Adds meaningful usage context.

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

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

The description clearly states 'semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with concrete examples (SEC 10-K, article) and distinguishes from siblings by specifying when to use it (record too large) and pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and describes how it pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded, providing clear guidance on when and how to use the tool versus 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 non-read-only and non-destructive. Description adds context: OAuth requirement, SMS cap, webhook auto-disable. However, idempotentHint=true may conflict with the description of creating new subscriptions each call; no clarification on idempotency.

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: purpose, auth requirement, types, delivery. Slightly lengthy but every sentence adds necessary context. 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?

Covers input completely, mentions account prerequisites, delivery constraints, and return of subscription ID. Missing output schema but description compensates. No gaps for tool usage.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds valuable examples and constraints (SMS cap, webhook signing) beyond schema descriptions. One point off because schema already had decent 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 explicitly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'subscription', specifies return value ('Returns the new subscription id'), and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe.

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

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

Provides prerequisites (OAuth account), lists supported types with examples, and describes delivery channels. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context implies it's for proactive monitoring, not one-time queries.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld. The description adds behavioral context: returns category-bucketed example questions, draws from live catalog, and is the first step. 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 front-loaded with common queries, then explains output structure, then usage. Every sentence is necessary; no fluff. Well-organized.

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 fully explains what is returned (category-bucketed examples with tool+argument shapes). It covers when to use, how to call, topic options, and relationship to meta-tools. Complete for its purpose.

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 description of the parameter. The description expands on it by listing example topics (finance, pharma, betting) and explaining that omitting gives a cross-category spread, adding significant 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 states it returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shapes, and explicitly distinguishes itself as the onboarding entry point to be used first. It mentions 'what can I ask Pipeworx?' etc., clearly identifying the verb-resource combination.

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 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 when-to-use and alternatives. Also specifies call patterns: no arguments for full spread, topic parameter to focus.

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

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

Beyond annotations (write, non-destructive, idempotent), the description adds that the row is deactivated not deleted and ownership is enforced, providing critical 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?

Two sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value. Highly concise and 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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations, the description fully covers the behavioral model (ownership, deactivation) and provides sufficient context without needing 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?

The description adds no extra meaning beyond the input schema, which fully describes the 'id' parameter. 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 uses a specific verb 'Cancel' and resource 'subscription by id', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'.

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

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

It explicitly states ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and explains the behavior (deactivation vs deletion, linking to 'recent_alerts'), guiding the agent on when and how 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?

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it specifies the domain (v1 supports company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR + XBRL) and details the return value (verdicts, extracted form, actual value with citation, percent delta). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint; the description adds valuable 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 concise and well-structured: it starts with example queries, states the purpose, details the domain and supported data sources, describes the output, and highlights efficiency gains. Every sentence serves a purpose 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's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is comprehensive. It covers the input format, domain constraints, output details (verdicts with citation and delta), and the tool's advantage over sequential alternatives, providing sufficient context for correct invocation.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'claim', which includes a description. The description adds further meaning by providing example claims and listing natural-language patterns ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', etc.), enhancing semantic understanding 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 the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, specifically for company-financial claims. It provides example queries and distinguishes from siblings by noting it replaces multiple sequential calls, making the tool's function 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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and specifies the domain (company-financial claims for public US companies). While it does not explicitly state when not to use, the domain limitation is clearly indicated, providing adequate guidance for the agent.

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