Ebi Ols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds that default model is free, Anthropic requires BYO key, and returns per-model data with a combined view. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. 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 exists, but the description explains the return format (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response plus combined view). It covers all necessary behavioral and return 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds meaning: default model, models optional, _apiKey pass-through, context for disambiguation.

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 probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scores visibility (0-100) per model. It specifies the default model and optional Anthropic probing. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on scoring multiple models.

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

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

The description mentions use cases: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: it routes to 4,774 tools, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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

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

The description is well-structured with examples, usage hierarchy, and clear guidance. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly but very 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 tool's complexity, schema coverage, and annotation richness, the description provides complete context: when to use, how it works, what output to expect, and how it compares to siblings. No gaps.

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 detailed descriptions for all parameters including aliases. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since the schema already handles it. 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's purpose: to answer factual questions about current or historical data from authoritative sources with citations. It uses specific verbs ('routes', 'returns') and distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and web search.

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 extensive when-to-use guidance with examples. It also specifies when to step up to alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded for hallucination-resistant answers, deep_research for broad questions) and when to use web search for breaking news.

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

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it details the extraction process, return format with evidence and refusal reasons, and cost implications. Annotations only indicate read-only and idempotent; the description explains what that means in practice.

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

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

The description is well-structured and mostly concise, but includes some specific numbers (4,774 tools, 1242 sources) that add detail but could be shortened. It front-loads the key purpose and 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?

For a complex tool that routes to many sources, the description is thorough: covers behavior, return format, refusal reasons, and cost. It lacks details on how confidence is computed or partial evidence handling, but overall is nearly complete.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage, with all six parameters being aliases for 'question' and clearly described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'ask_pipeworx' by emphasizing extraction from tool results only and listing explicit use cases (financial verdicts, legal claims, etc.).

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: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on.' Also provides when-not-to-use: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups' due to extra cost. This is clear guidance.

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

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

The description goes far beyond annotations, detailing low-confidence resolution short-circuiting, closed market handling, wide-spread illiquidity markers, resolution-rule risk parsing, and parent event extraction. Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world; the description confirms and enriches these aspects.

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 into sections (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, RESPONSE SHAPES, etc.). Every sentence adds value, though its length could be slightly overwhelming. It earns its size due to the tool's complexity.

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 fully explains the return structure: result.market, result.analysis, result.evidence, resolver contract, parent_event, news fields, safety, and resolution-rule risk. It covers all important aspects for a complex 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 the description adds context for each parameter: market can be slug, URL, or text; depth options 'quick' vs 'thorough' are explained; include_raw explains summary vs full payload behavior. This adds significant 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's purpose: researching a Polymarket bet by pulling Pipeworx data in one call. It specifies input types (slug, URL, question text) and output (evidence packet + comparison). It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on a single bet's comprehensive data.

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 use cases: 'should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', 'is there edge in Z'. It implies when to use this tool over siblings but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds rich behavioral context: it uses SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies and FAERS for drugs, handles off-calendar fiscal years correctly, sorts results by primary metric, and returns paired data with citation URIs. 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 relatively long but well-packed with information. It is front-loaded with trigger phrases and then details. Every sentence earns its place. Slight redundancy could be tightened but overall concise for the complexity.

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 and lack of output schema, the description covers what to expect: paired data with citation URIs, sorted results, data sources. It doesn't specify exact output format, but sets adequate expectations. Annotations fill safety profile gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'type=company' pulls financials and 'type=drug' pulls adverse event counts, approval counts, and trial counts. It also gives example inputs like tickers and drug names, beyond the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs in ONE parallel call.' It provides example user queries and distinguishes itself from single-entity lookups by explicitly saying 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.'

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 guidance on when to use ('compare X and Y', 'rank these companies') and states a preference over sequential lookups. It explains entity types and what data each pulls. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is clear.

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

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

Describes output format (findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, citation, gaps), timing (15-60s), and limitation (empty gaps for news). Annotations already show readOnly, idempotent, etc.; description adds valuable 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?

Well-structured with critical info front-loaded (account requirement, alternative). While lengthy, each sentence serves a purpose given the tool's complexity.

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 purpose, output format, limitations, prerequisites, alternatives, and timing. No output schema, so description compensates with detailed return value description. Examples of good questions provided.

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 descriptions are good, and the description adds details like depth mapping (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and that question can be broad/multi-part. 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?

The description clearly states it performs grounded multi-source research across 1242 structured data sources, decomposing questions into facets. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx (single lookup) and open-web search.

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 when to use alternatives: single lookup → ask_pipeworx, breaking/news topics → ask_pipeworx. Also warns about account requirements and depth pricing.

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 value beyond annotations by stating results include 'full input schemas (with curated examples)' and 'no second schema lookup needed.' Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, so description enriches 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?

Every sentence earns its place—front-loaded with purpose, followed by use cases and return value. No fluff, well-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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return format (top-N tools with schemas and examples) and when to use it (first). Parameter aliases and usage context are sufficient.

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 parameter descriptions. Description explains the main 'query' parameter as 'Natural language description' and lists aliases (task, q, search, description), adding 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 'Find tools by describing the data or task' and lists specific domains (SEC filings, FDA drugs, etc.), making the purpose distinct from sibling tools that perform specific queries or analyses.

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: 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' Also provides usage context with 'use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for...'

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 safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds rich behavioral context: sources (SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF), specific return fields, sorting details, and a known soft-failure for patents post-May 2025. 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?

Well-structured with examples upfront and clear breakdown of return fields. Slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value; could be trimmed without losing essential information, hence a 4.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (list of fields with details like sorting, URIs, fallback mechanisms). Completely covers all necessary context for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool 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 well-described parameters. The description reinforces that value accepts ticker or zero-padded CIK, clarifies the type enum is limited to 'company', and reiterates that names are not supported, adding 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's purpose: providing a full cross-source profile of a US public company. It includes example queries and enumerates the return fields (CIK, filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 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?

Explicitly advises to prefer this tool over chaining individual lookups for holistic views. Also specifies that names are not supported and recommends using resolve_entity first if only a name is available, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds context about clearing sensitive data and aligns with destructive nature, 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidance. Perfectly 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?

For a simple deletion tool with one parameter, clear annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and transparency adequately.

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 one parameter 'key' described as 'Memory key to delete'. Description doesn't add new meaning beyond 'by key', 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 'Delete' and the resource 'previously stored memory' with the specific action 'by key'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall' by pairing them.

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 this tool: when context is stale, task is done, or to clear sensitive data. Mentions pairing with related tools, 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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive. The description adds that it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits markdown, which is helpful context beyond annotations.

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

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

Two sentences: first clearly states purpose and output, second provides details and use cases. No redundant information, 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format ('single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt') and core behavior. Could mention rate limiting or error handling, but not essential for this simple tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description explains that max_links controls the number of link entries and that url is the site to summarize. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's 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 verb 'generate', the resource 'llms.txt file', and the target 'any URL'. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on generation, not just scanning.

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

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

Explicitly lists use cases: getting a client's site indexed, drafting llms.txt, auditing competitors. While it doesn't state when not to use, the context is clear and no alternative tools are directly suggested.

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, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds that it returns 'metadata', but provides no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.

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

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

Single, concise sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the 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?

Description is short but sufficient for a simple look-up tool with a rich annotation set and output schema. Could mention error handling but not necessary.

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 has 0% coverage for 'id', but the description provides examples (efo, mondo, go) clarifying it expects ontology identifiers, adding critical 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 it retrieves ontology metadata by ID and gives concrete examples ('efo', 'mondo', 'go'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_ontologies and get_term.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'by id' with examples, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent nature. The description adds that short_form and obo_id require ontology, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or auth. 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no unnecessary words. Every part 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description is passable but minimal. It omits details about what 'term details' entails and the contradictory implication about ontology requirement reduces completeness.

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 meaning by indicating that short_form and obo_id require ontology, but implies that iri may not, contradicting the input schema which marks ontology as required for all invocations. This misinformation reduces reliability. Schema coverage is 50%, so description needed to compensate but did so with error.

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 'Term details', which combined with the tool name clarifies it retrieves information about a term. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like term_ancestors or term_children that also deal with term information, missing a chance to differentiate.

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 guidance on parameter selection within the tool ('Pass either iri, short_form, or obo_id'), but does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., term_ancestors, term_children). No exclusions or comparative context are offered.

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 the behavioral detail of pagination, which is useful but not extensive.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose and key feature without any unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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

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

Given the low complexity, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could benefit from clarifying that it returns all loaded ontologies and how pagination works.

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 have detailed descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context about parameters, so it meets the 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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'ontologies', and the key feature 'paginated'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_ontology' which targets a single ontology.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_ontology' or 'search'. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's addition of return fields and usage context is moderate. No contradictions and no extra behavioral details beyond the structured 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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and return fields, followed by a usage suggestion. No filler or redundant 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 tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the return fields and usage context sufficiently. It could mention pagination or ordering, but it's not critical for a listing 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?

The sole parameter (include_inactive) is fully described in the input schema. The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (subscriptions), specifies the return fields (id, type, params, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling tools 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?

The description advises to use this tool 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel,' providing clear use cases. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios but contextually implies when 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?

Description discloses rate limits (5 per identifier per day), free usage (no quota impact), and team responsiveness (daily digests, affects roadmap). Annotations are all false and provide no hints, so the description adds full behavioral transparency.

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: purpose, usage instructions with examples, and behavioral constraints. No fluff, front-loaded, each 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?

For a feedback tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, what to include, behavioral constraints, and expected impact. No gaps identified.

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%, baseline is 3. The description adds usage guidance beyond schema (e.g., 'describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs'), providing extra value without repeating schema details.

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: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and is distinct from all sibling tools.

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

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

Explicitly provides when to use this tool: for bugs, feature/data gaps, or praise. Also includes a negative instruction ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). The description gives clear context and alternatives are implied (no other feedback 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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds beyond: 'Self-aggregating signal — derived from CF analytics-engine, no PII' and caching details. 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?

Two sentences plus a bullet list. Every sentence adds unique value; no redundancy. Structure front-loads purpose then use cases then technical details.

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

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

For a low-complexity tool (1 optional param, no output schema), description fully covers purpose, usage, data source, privacy, and caching. No gaps.

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 the single parameter fully (100% coverage). Description adds context on window choice: 'shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand.'

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 returns top tools, packs, and call volume over recent windows. It lists specific use cases that distinguish it from siblings like 'discover_tools' or 'ask_pipeworx'.

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

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

Explicit three-point use-case list guides when to use. Lacks explicit when-not-to or alternative tool names, but window guidance ('shorter windows surface what's hot') adds value.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description explains the internal logic (monotonicity checks, partition sums, Jaccard similarity filter, partition filter, fill check against CLOB depth). 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: begins with core purpose, then explains modes, then adds technical details. It could be slightly more concise, but the information density is high and every sentence adds value.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully specifies the response structure (opportunities array with fields, partition_check object in event mode) and references fill check and sibling tool for sizing. No gaps remain.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant context: explains defaults, elaborates on event and topic modes with examples, and details the internal processing. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions, warranting 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 explicitly states the tool finds arbitrage opportunities via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks, and clearly distinguishes three modes (no args, event, topic). This is specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: no args for trending scan, event for specific market (recommended), and topic for cross-event scanning. It also warns against trading when realizable_edge_pp <= 0 and references 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 adds significant context beyond annotations: caching behavior, model families with formulas, edge calculation details, response structure with diagnostics, and edge-cases like Fed bets. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.).

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 but very long (over 400 words). While it front-loads purpose, the deep technical details make it less concise. Some sentences could be trimmed without losing 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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the response structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, diagnostics) and caching. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to understand usage, parameters, and outcomes.

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 parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining knobs in context (e.g., min_kelly, min_partition_leg_kelly) and how they affect results, which is beyond the schema but not fully redundant.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool scans Polymarket markets to find opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, specifically built for 'what should I bet on today'. It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on multiple model families and structural arbitrage detection.

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 extensive detail on how the tool works and what it does, and implies usage for daily betting research without paging markets. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to sibling tools, though the comprehensive detail aids selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: history is bounded by a 60-day TTL, decay is computed from daily closes (not intraday), and snapshots may have gaps. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool does 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 moderately long but well-structured: purpose, use-case, args, response details, limits. Every section provides necessary information without redundancy. It is concise given the amount of detail, earning a 4.

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 format: tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[] with field details. It covers limits and caveats (TTL, snapshot gaps). The description is complete and leaves no major gaps for the agent to infer.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds default values (14 days, '1wk'), explains the lookup and window concepts, and lists window options (24hr, 1wk, 1mo). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though the schema already includes defaults and a description.

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: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots'. It explains what it does (track how long edges exist and if they are shrinking) and distinguishes from siblings by being a derivative telemetry tool, not the raw edges source.

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 context for usage: 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades'. It gives default parameter values and constraints, and explains the response structure, helping the agent decide when to use this tool. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use it or directing to alternatives like polymarket_edges.

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 significant behavioral context: order book walking, return fields, verdict mechanism, and forced_directional_risk. No contradiction.

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

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

Well-structured with sections and front-loaded purpose. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be tighter but still effective.

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

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

No output schema, but description lists all important return fields for both modes. Covers risks and edge cases. Could mention rate limits or multi-call behavior, but overall complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by explaining mode-dependent interpretation of 'side' and 'size_usd', and clarifies default and clamp range beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool checks realizable-vs-theoretical edge against live CLOB order-book depth, distinguishes single-market from basket mode, and lists return fields. It explicitly differentiates from siblings 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?

Explicitly states when to use: before acting on polymarket_arbitrage signals or polymarket_edges trades above $500. Warns about partial fill risks and directional position conversion.

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. The description goes far beyond these, detailing compatibility_warning conditions, temporal_alignment checks, skipped_cross_type/subtype counters, and the meaning of each response field. 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 (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS) and front-loads the core purpose. However, it is a bit lengthy; some redundant phrases like 'pre-mapped ≠ tradeable' are helpful but could be tightened. Still earns its space.

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 having no output schema, the description thoroughly documents every response field: venue prices, matched spreads, compatibility_warning conditions, temporal_alignment, and counters. For a tool of moderate complexity, this is complete coverage.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by listing all 10 topic shortcuts, giving examples, and explaining the override behavior of explicit parameters. It could provide more examples for explicit tickers, but overall adds 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 the tool computes the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It uses specific verbs ('compute', 'auto-fetch', 'returns') and clearly distinguishes from 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 explicitly defines two modes ('topic' shortcuts and explicit tickers), provides examples, and warns that most pre-mapped topics are not tradeable—giving clear guidance on when to use alternative tools or avoid wasting calls. It also explains when compatibility warnings fire.

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. The description adds valuable behavioral context: scoping to identifier (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, or account ID) and pairing with remember/forget. 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 three sentences, each serving a specific purpose: function, use case, and scoping/pairing. No redundant information; 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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context on what to expect (value or list of keys). It could mention the return type, but it's implied.

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 one optional parameter 'key' is fully covered by the schema (100% coverage). The description adds the important behavior that omitting the key lists all saved keys, which goes beyond the schema's description.

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's purpose: retrieving a saved value or listing all keys. It uses specific verbs ('Retrieve', 'list') and the resource ('value previously saved via remember'), and effectively distinguishes it from siblings 'remember' 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'to look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch.' It also mentions omitting the key to list all keys and notes scoping. While no explicit 'when not to use' is given, the context is clear enough.

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

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

The description is consistent with annotations: readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint are all supported by the description stating it pulls events without destructive side effects. Marking events as read is a benign state change that does not contradict annotations.

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

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

The description is concise, with two well-structured sentences covering the core purpose, return fields, filter options, and usage notes. 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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and how to use parameters. It covers the essential details for a data retrieval tool, including behavior of mark_read and unread_only.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful context beyond parameter names: it explains the purpose of type filtering, the format for since (ISO timestamp), the effect of mark_read (flagging events as read for subsequent calls), and unread_only (return only unread). This reduces ambiguity.

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 recent alerts from a subscription feed, specifying it returns fired events with source, citation_uri, and raw payload. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_subscriptions (which lists subscriptions) and subscribe/unsubscribe.

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

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

The description explains when to use filters (type, since) and the mark_read option, and mentions polling compatibility and an alternative direct API endpoint for scripts/dashboards. It could add a note about not using this for subscribing/unsubscribing, but the sibling list implies differentiation.

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 safety hints (readOnly, idempotent). Description adds: fans out to multiple sources, fallback logic, USPTO soft-fail, and return structure. No contradictions. Somewhat lacking details on rate limits beyond the GDELT/GNews fallback.

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 lengthy but well-structured with examples and clear sections. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Could be slightly more concise, but fine.

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

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

Despite no output schema, description fully explains return shape (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). Covers all sources, fallbacks, and parameter use. Complete for a complex 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%. Description adds examples for 'since' (ISO or relative, suggests '30d'), clarifies 'type' only supports 'company', and explains 'value' can be ticker or CIK. Adds useful context beyond enum and type info.

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 provides a change feed for a company with examples of queries like 'What's new with X'. It distinguishes from sibling tool entity_profile by specifying when to use the static profile instead.

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 when-to-use examples given (e.g., 'what happened to Z this week'). States alternative tool entity_profile for static profile. Also describes fallback behavior between GDELT and GNews.

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, it explains scope (scoped by identifier), persistence differences (authenticated vs anonymous, 24-hour expiry), and that it's idempotent (consistent with annotation). 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?

Concise, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Each sentence adds value.

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

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

Despite no output schema, description covers storage format, persistence, and pairing with other tools, making it fully usable.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema with example key formats and value types (findings, addresses), complementing the 100% covered 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 saves data for later reuse, provides examples (resolved ticker, target address), and distinguishes it from siblings (recall, forget) mentioned explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and pairs with alternatives ('Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete').

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 behavioral detail about internal cascading lookups ('Each call cascades through several lookup endpoints internally') and the specific return format (e.g., ticker + CIK + company_name + citation URI). This enriches the agent's understanding beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with example queries and covers purpose, usage, types, and internal behavior without redundancy. It is slightly long but each sentence contributes value. A minor trim could make it more concise.

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

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

Without an output schema, the description fully explains return values for each entity type, including the citation URI. It also notes auto-disambiguation for company inputs. This provides complete context for the agent to understand what the tool delivers.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds format examples and clarifications (e.g., 'For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name.') which provide concrete guidance on how to fill the parameters, improving semantic clarity.

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 example queries that clearly illustrate the tool's purpose (resolving names to identifiers). It explicitly states the verb-object pair: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifier'. The supported types (company, drug) and their specific outputs are detailed, ensuring no ambiguity.

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 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' This is a clear usage directive. It does not list alternative tools for comparison, but no similar resolution tools exist among siblings, so the guidance is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining it probes each entity with ai_visibility_check and returns ranked results, providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is concise at several sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff.

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 explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It covers input, process, output, and use case, making it complete for a read-only comparison tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds usage context (e.g., 'first entry treated as subject', 'omit models for just workers-ai') that complements the schema, exceeding the baseline of 3.

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

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

The description clearly states it compares AI visibility across multiple entities, uses ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized. This distinguishes it from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (general comparison).

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 clear context for use ('competitive AI-marketing audits') with an example question. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, it implies the tool is for multi-entity comparisons, differentiating from ai_visibility_check.

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 key behavioral traits beyond annotations, such as graceful degradation on partial failures, a 5-30s timeout for bundlephobia first measurement, and that sources_failed will list timed-out sources. This adds significant value beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured with a front-loaded main sentence and subsequent details. It is relatively long but every sentence provides useful information. Minor improvements could condense the list of return fields slightly, but overall it is effective and not overly verbose.

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 the return values: a summary block with specific fields, per-advisory details, links, and recent versions. It also covers error handling and edge cases (timeouts, partial failures). This makes the tool's behavior and output completely clear.

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

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

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds further meaning: it clarifies that scoped packages (e.g., '@types/node') are accepted for the package parameter, and that the version parameter defaults to the latest published version when omitted. This enhances the schema's information.

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 is a composite check for evaluating npm packages using deps.dev and bundlephobia. It specifies the exact use case ('should I add this npm package to my project') and distinguishes itself from other tools by naming its specific data sources and output structure.

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 when to use the tool (when asked about safety, popularity, size) and when not (non-NPM ecosystems, which should use deps.dev:version directly). It provides clear context but does not name a specific alternative tool for non-NPM packages, only a general directive.

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 context about searching across ontologies, which aligns with annotations. 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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the 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 moderate complexity and presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately covers the core use. It could mention pagination or result format, but output schema likely covers 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?

Schema description coverage is 80%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description only mentions the ontology parameter implicitly via 'across all ontologies (or one)'. No additional details beyond schema for other parameters.

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

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

The description clearly states it performs full-text search across all ontologies or a specific one, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_within'.

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 a basic usage scenario (across all or one ontology) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to 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 substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it specifies the embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity metric (cosine), window size (500-char overlapping windows), character cap (200K chars with truncation flag), and that passages carry character offsets for verification. This compensates fully for the lack of annotation detail.

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 packs a lot of information without redundancy. It starts with a clear purpose statement and flows logically. Could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., bullet points) but is effective as is.

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 compensates by detailing the output (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores), explaining limitations (200K char cap, truncation flag), and providing usage context. It is complete and actionable.

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 the schema already documents all 3 parameters adequately. The description reinforces the 200K char limit for 'text' and gives examples for 'query', but adds only marginal value 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?

The description clearly defines the tool as performing semantic search inside a fetched record, with specific examples (SEC 10-K body, article) and a clear verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning a pairing with 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' and implying a contrast with simpler search tools.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also explains benefits (saves context, returns only relevant passages with offsets) and suggests a complementary tool, providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already provide readonly, destructive, idempotent hints. The description adds valuable behavioral details: OAuth requirement, return of subscription id, delivery channel constraints (SMS cap, webhook auto-disable, webhook secret returned once), and type-specific parameter behavior.

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

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

The description is moderately long but well-structured: purpose statement, account requirement, type list with examples, delivery channels with details. Every sentence adds value; however, it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (5 subscription types, 3 delivery channels with constraints), the description covers all essential aspects: required parameters, optional delivery, return value, account requirement, and references to related tools. No output schema is provided, but the description clarifies the return.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches each parameter with concrete examples and usage rules (e.g., 'sec_8k: items:["5.02"] = officer change', 'SMS must match verified phone', 'webhook returns secret once'). This adds significant meaning 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 action: 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('subscription'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_subscriptions, unsubscribe, and recent_alerts.

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 usage context: requires OAuth, lists supported types with examples, and mentions alternatives for pulling from the feed ('recent_alerts or GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or directly compare to all siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, aligning with the read-only nature. The description adds transparency by detailing the output structure (categorized examples with tool arguments) and that it uses the live tool catalog, 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 front-loaded with natural language queries that users would ask, followed by a clear explanation of the output. Every sentence serves a purpose, and it is structured with bullet-point-like domain 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?

Given the tool's complexity (returns categorized examples with tool shapes) and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what it returns. No gaps in 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 single optional parameter 'topic' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that omitting it gives a full spread while passing a topic focuses the results, and lists example values.

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 returns 'category-bucketed example questions' from specific domains, with exact tool+argument shapes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools by being the onboarding entry point for exploring capabilities.

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 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do' and explains when to pass a topic vs call without arguments. It also notes it teaches how to call meta-tools, 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows the tool is safe and non-mutating. The description adds the 'transitive' behavior, which is useful but minimal. No additional context on performance, limitations, or edge cases beyond what annotations give.

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 concise phrase of 4 words. Very efficient, but could be improved with a verb. Still earns its place as it conveys the core purpose without extraneous text.

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 annotations covering safety, the description is still too minimal. It does not define 'transitive ancestors', explain parameter semantics, or reference the output schema (which exists). The agent has to infer too much.

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%, meaning the 'iri' and 'ontology' parameters have no descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain these parameters at all, relying solely on the parameter names. Given the coverage gap, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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

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

Description states 'transitive ancestors of a term', which clearly identifies the output as the complete ancestor chain. It uses the specific term 'transitive' to distinguish from direct ancestors. However, no verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' is present, making it slightly passive.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'term_children' or 'get_term'. No exclusions or context provided. The description implies usage when ancestors are needed, but lacks explicit direction.

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 readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as pagination, performance, or data freshness.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at one sentence, but it could include slightly more information without losing brevity, such as clarifying the ontology context.

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 simple nature of the tool (2 parameters, output schema present) and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate but does not address edge cases or output format expectations.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the meaning of parameters 'iri' or 'ontology'. It relies on the schema alone, which has no descriptions, providing no added 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 returns 'direct children of a term', which is a specific resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'term_ancestors', missing an opportunity to differentiate.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description lacks any usage recommendations.

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 mutation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint false). Description adds that the row is deactivated, not deleted, and historical events remain available via recent_alerts, providing useful context beyond annotations.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with main action, then constraints and effects. 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, ownership, deactivation behavior, and links to related tool. 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 covers the single parameter with description. Baseline 3 as coverage is 100%; description adds little beyond the schema's 'id' description.

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 verb 'Cancel' and resource 'subscription by id', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' (creates) and 'list_subscriptions' (lists).

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?

States ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), providing important context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the constraint is clear.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral traits: returns verdict, extracted structured form, actual value with citation, percent delta, and that it uses SEC EDGAR + XBRL. No contradiction with annotations; adds value beyond them.

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

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

The description is somewhat lengthy but front-loaded with examples. It is informative but could be more concise; some details like the list of result fields are useful but add 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 single parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and output completely. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to select and 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 description coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'claim' parameter. The description adds extra context with examples and domain scope, enriching understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It provides specific verb-resource 'validate claim' and explains the domain (company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR + XBRL). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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 (public US companies' financial claims). While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or compare to other siblings, it provides clear usage context.

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