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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent; description adds the return structure (category-bucketed examples with tool+argument shape) and the no-argument vs topic-focused behavior. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is detailed but well-structured: it starts with query phrasings, defines the tool's purpose, lists categories, and explains usage. Each sentence serves a purpose.

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

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

The tool has no output schema and 1 optional parameter. The description covers when to use, how to call (with/without topic), what it returns, and how it relates to meta-tools. This is sufficient for an agent to 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 description already covers the topic parameter values. The description adds examples ('finance', 'pharma', 'betting') and clarifies the effect of passing a topic (focus the spread), adding 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 identifies the tool as the onboarding entry point, stating it returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool + argument shape. It distinguishes from siblings by advising 'Use this FIRST' when the agent doesn't know what Pipeworx can do.

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

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

Explicitly gives the when: 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you'. It also indicates the optional topic parameter for focus. However, it doesn't mention explicit alternatives like discover_tools or when not to use it.

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