Ebird

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing that it probes LLMs, returns per-model data (score, confidence, signals, raw_response) plus a combined view, and notes that Anthropic calls require a BYO API key and incur direct costs. 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, well-structured paragraph of about 4 sentences. It leads with the core action and outcome, follows with key details (default model, Anthropic key), then return format, and ends with use cases. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or wasted words.

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

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

For a tool with 4 parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, key parameters, return structure, and use cases. It does not mention error handling, rate limits, or specific output format details, but these gaps are minor given the annotations and schema 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-described. The description adds context beyond the schema: it specifies the default model (Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b free) and clarifies that the `_apiKey` is passed through to Anthropic. This helps the agent understand parameter behavior without relying solely on schema names.

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 'probe', the resource 'LLMs', and the outcome 'score visibility (0-100) per model'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'ask_pipeworx' and 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on AI visibility auditing rather than general questions or competitor 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?

The description explicitly lists use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring'. It also explains the default model and the optional Anthropic key with cost implications. While it doesn't specify when not to use or name alternative tools, the context is clear and sufficient for an agent.

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 context beyond annotations: explains internal routing, return format with citation URIs, and that it works on every tier, without contradicting annotations.

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

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

Description is fairly long but well-structured with clear sections, examples, and alternatives. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity, schema coverage, and missing output schema, the description thoroughly explains purpose, usage, return format, and when to use alternatives.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description provides aliases and examples but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what schema already offers.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool routes factual questions to a large set of tools, returns structured answers with citations, and distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research.

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 instructs to start here as default entry point, provides when-not-to-use and alternatives (grounded, deep_research, web search), and gives numerous examples.

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

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

Annotations already provide safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). Description adds that it is experimental, may have candidate routing changes, and currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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

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

Single focused paragraph conveying key functional differences and usage instructions. Could be slightly shorter but is well-organized and front-loaded.

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

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

Explains current state (no active candidate), identity with ask_pipeworx, and fallback behavior. No output schema, but description states 'same response shape', providing sufficient context for an agent.

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 each parameter described as an alias for 'question'. Description mentions 'same arguments' but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Clearly states it is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router for 5,245 tools with experimental routing improvements, distinguishing it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling.

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 to use it when you want the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. Mentions current state (no active candidate) and that it falls back to nothing, implying it is a full router.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate safe, read-only behavior. The description adds valuable disclosure: 'EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains,' lists explicit refusal reasons, and notes the extra cost. 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 moderately concise (about 80 words) and well-structured: purpose first, then relationship to sibling, then output format and refusal reasons, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose in the middle section.

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 (tool routing, extraction, refusal handling) and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It details the output structure, possible refusal reasons, use cases, and cost trade-off. No gaps for an AI agent to misuse the tool.

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

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

Schema has 6 parameters but all are aliases for the same thing (question). Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no explanation of how the question is used or constraints).

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 explains the mechanism (picks the right tool, fetches data, extracts answer using only the result) and distinguishes it from the sibling tool ask_pipeworx by highlighting the extra extraction step and refusal behavior.

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: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements).' Also says when to avoid: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' Provides cost trade-off: 'Costs one extra LLM call vs ask_pipeworx.'

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

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds extensive behavioral details: market resolution, classifier selection, fan-out logic, response shapes, resolver contract, parent event extraction, news fallback, safety mechanisms for low confidence/closed markets, spread warnings, and cancellation rule parsing. 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?

Long but well-structured: front-loaded purpose, followed by classifiers, examples, response shapes, and safety details. Every sentence adds necessary value; though verbose, it's justified by 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 output schema, description covers all return fields: market, analysis, evidence, parent_event, news, resolver contract, cancellation rules, and edge cases. Complete for a research tool.

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

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

Schema coverage 100% with three parameters. Description adds meaning: market accepts multiple formats, depth default thorough, include_raw summary vs raw behavior. Adds significant value beyond schema.

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

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

Clearly states it researches a Polymarket bet by pulling Pipeworx data, accepting slug, URL, or question text. Distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on data gathering and evidence packet.

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 ('should I bet on X', etc.) and provides classifier examples and fan-out examples. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use compared to siblings, but the context makes it clear this is for research.

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 significant behavioral details beyond annotations: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), off-calendar fiscal year handling, result sorting by primary metric, and return format (paired data + citation URIs). No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is dense but well-structured, front-loaded with trigger phrases. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by using bullet points for the two types.

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 explains return format and sorting behavior. It covers all essential aspects for a tool comparing 2-5 entities of two types, providing complete context for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining what each type pulls (e.g., revenue/net income for companies, adverse events for drugs) and providing example formats for values (tickers/CIKs for company, names for drug). This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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

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

The description uses strong verbs like 'compare', 'rank', and provides natural language triggers. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'entity_profile' by specifying it performs side-by-side comparisons of 2-5 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?

Explicitly states 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also mentions it replaces 8-15 sequential lookups, implying when not to use (single entity lookups).

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 decomposition into facets, parallel routing to 5,245 tools, expected latency (15-90s), and output structure (findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, citation, gaps, contradictions). Discloses semantic excerpting for large records. All aligns with annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive).

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-organized, front-loading critical prerequisites (account, alternative). Every sentence contributes unique information, though some redundancy could be trimmed. Given tool complexity, length is justified.

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 prerequisites, alternatives, behavioral details, output format, limitations, latency, and iteration modes. With no output schema, the description provides complete guidance on what to expect. The annotation set is fully complemented by the description.

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 significant detail beyond the schema: explains depth enum values (quick=3, standard=5 with gap recovery and contradictions, thorough=8 with iterative leads and contradictions). Clarifies that question can be broad/multi-part and that decomposition is automatic.

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 Pipeworx's 1369 structured data sources in one call, contrasting it with open-web search and sibling ask_pipeworx for single lookups. It provides specific use cases and examples, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when not to use (breaking news, current events, single lookups). Provides alternative tools (ask_pipeworx) and notes account requirements with a free option and paid plan for deeper depth.

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 safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral detail about returning ready-to-call tools with schemas and examples, which is useful 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 well-structured with clear sections, but slightly verbose. Each sentence adds meaning, and essential information is 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (top-N tools with full schemas). All parameters are described, and the context signals are covered. No major 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 providing examples, explaining that 'query' accepts natural language, and listing aliases, making the parameter semantics richer.

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 specifies the verb 'find' and the resource 'tools', and contrasts with sibling tools by positioning itself as a discovery tool to be called first when many tools are available.

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

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

The description explicitly lists when to use ('browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for...') and provides domain examples. It also advises calling this first, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative sibling comparisons.

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 safe read-only behavior (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds important behavioral details: parallel fan-out across sources, specific depth limits (e.g., up to 5 filings), patent API sunset 'soft-fails until reactivated', and fallback logic (GDELT→GNews). 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 moderately lengthy but each sentence is informative. It front-loads the key purpose and usage guidance. Minor redundancy (e.g., repeating ticker/CIK examples) but overall efficient for the amount of context needed.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (multiple data sources, dependencies on external APIs, sunset dates, fallbacks) and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It lists all return fields, explains the patent API limitation, and mentions URI generation for filings. Nothing essential is omitted.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds significant context beyond the schema: explains the meaning of 'type' (only 'company' currently), clarifies that 'value' can be ticker or zero-padded CIK, and explicitly states that names are not supported (directing to resolve_entity). This helps the agent understand parameter constraints and alternatives.

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: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It enumerates specific data sources (SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF) and return fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like resolve_entity and other research 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 advises when to use: 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack...lookups when user asks for holistic view.' Also provides a clear exclusion: 'Names not supported — use resolve_entity first if you only have a name.' This gives clear guidance on when to choose this tool over 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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds value by specifying the output (species code) and its role, complementing annotations without contradiction.

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

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

Two sentences, no redundant words, front-loaded with action and output. Perfectly concise for a simple lookup tool.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. Could briefly mention that it returns exact matches, but the purpose is clear.

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

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

Schema already covers the single 'query' parameter with description 'Common or scientific name'. Description adds no additional context (e.g., case sensitivity, partial match behavior), 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?

Description clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'eBird taxonomy', specifies input types (common or scientific name), and explains output purpose (species code for observation tools), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle observations.

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

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

Description implies use when needing an eBird species code for observation tools, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or any exclusions. Adequate but minimal.

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 confirms destructive behavior, which is already indicated by the annotation destructiveHint=true. It adds context about clearing sensitive data, but does not disclose permanence or error behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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, no redundant information. Front-loaded with the primary action and followed by 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 simple deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, and sibling relationships 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% for the single parameter 'key', which has a description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond referencing the key, 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 explicitly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning pairing with remember and recall.

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

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

Provides clear use cases: when context is stale, task is done, or to clear sensitive data. Suggests pairing with siblings but does not explicitly state 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 convey safe, read-only, idempotent nature. Description adds the process of fetching and extracting content, plus output format, which is helpful 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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, process, use cases. 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?

Comprehensive for a read-only tool: explains what it does, how it works, output format, and use cases. No output schema but description sufficiently describes return value.

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

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

Schema covers both parameters with descriptions. Description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Clearly states verb 'generate' and resource 'llms.txt', distinguishing from sibling tools like 'ai_visibility_check' and 'scan_competitor_ai_presence'.

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

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

Explicitly lists use cases: indexing client sites, personal projects, auditing competitors. Does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but context is strong.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the hierarchical meaning of region types and code format, which is useful beyond the annotations, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication needs. The added value justifies a score above baseline.

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 three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the main function, the second explains region type meanings, and the third clarifies code format. 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?

Given the low parameter count, high schema coverage, presence of output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers essential aspects. It explains the hierarchy and code format but does not mention default values for parent_region_code. Still, it is adequate for a tool with this complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the region_type values (country, state/province, county) and specifying that parent_region_code uses eBird codes. This goes beyond the enum and optional flag, providing helpful semantic context for parameter selection.

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 child regions of a parent, specifying the hierarchy (country, subnational1, subnational2) and the use of eBird codes. This provides a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools by its unique purpose.

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

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

The description implies when to use the tool (when listing subregions), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context for choosing this over siblings, leaving the agent with only implicit clues.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds return field details but no new behavioral traits. 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: first states purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded.

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

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

For a simple read-only list tool with complete schema and annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and output. No output schema needed.

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% (one param with description). The description does not repeat param info, adding no value beyond 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 states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource, and lists return fields. It clearly 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 explicitly says 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel', providing clear context for when to use it, though it does not include explicit when-not-to-use statements.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety traits (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, not destructive). The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond input format constraints, which is adequate but not exceptional.

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 states core function and constraint, second provides usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential info.

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

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

With an output schema present and moderate complexity (6 params), the description covers purpose and key constraint. It omits mention of optional parameters, but schema covers them. Adequately complete for a read-only query tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and descriptions are already present for all 6 parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 it retrieves recent bird sightings within a radius of lat/lon. It specifies 'BIRD sightings' and notes eBird is birds-only, distinguishing it from other observation 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 gives a clear use case ('what birds are around this location right now') and implies the need for numeric coordinates. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is strong.

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

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

Beyond annotations (which are all false indicating no special restrictions), the description adds behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, and doesn't count against tool-call quota. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

Description is concise (5 sentences) yet informative. Each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage scenarios, content guidelines, behavioral note. 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?

For a feedback tool with 3 parameters (including nested object) and no output schema, the description fully covers all aspects: parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral limits.

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 usage tips for the message parameter (be specific, length constraints). The type parameter's enum values are also explained in the description, adding value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: sending feedback to the Pipeworx team about bugs, feature requests, data gaps, or praise. It uses specific verbs and resources, and differentiates from sibling tools by being the only feedback-focused tool.

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 (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and what not to do (don't paste the end-user's prompt). It also explains how feedback is used (daily digests, roadmap impact), providing comprehensive guidance.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive hints. Description adds caching behavior (5min-1h), data source (CF analytics-engine), and privacy note (no PII). This is valuable beyond annotations but does not contradict 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?

Description is succinct and front-loaded: first sentence states the main action, followed by a numbered list of use cases and additional context. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameters, use cases, caching, and data source adequately. It lacks explicit return format details but that's acceptable without an output schema.

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

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

Schema has 100% coverage with one enum parameter. Description adds semantic context about window selection (shorter for hot, longer for steady-state). This slightly extends the schema's description, which already had basic enum labels.

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

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

Clearly states the tool returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a window of 24h, 7d, or 30d. The verb 'Returns' and resource 'Pipeworx trending data' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on what other AI agents are calling, which is a unique niche among many discovery 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?

Lists three explicit use cases: discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tools, and checking alignment. Provides guidance on window selection. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or directly compare to alternatives like discover_tools or suggest_questions.

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

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations (which indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior) by detailing internal algorithms like Jaccard similarity filtering, partition placeholder filtering, and the fill check against CLOB depth. It warns that realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means the opportunity is not tradeable, adding critical 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?

The description is long but well-structured with clear section headers (SEMANTIC ANCHOR, PARTITION FILTER, FILL CHECK). While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise without losing essential detail. It is organized and every sentence contributes, but the length may overwhelm an agent at first glance.

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 completely explains the return format for both modes (opportunities[] and partition_check object) and the fill check output. It covers all critical aspects: scanning behavior, filtering rules, similarity requirements, and when to avoid trading. For a complex arbitrage tool, this is highly 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?

Both parameters (`event` and `topic`) are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), but the description adds substantial value: it explains when to use each, provides concrete examples (e.g., 'fed-decision-may-2026'), and describes the different behavior and outputs for each mode. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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: finding arbitrage opportunities via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It explains two distinct modes (event and topic) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_fill_risk by focusing on arbitrage detection with specific methodologies.

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 is provided: call with NO args for trending_scan, pass `event` for per-event partition checks, or `topic` for cross-event scans. It also advises when not to use the tool (e.g., for custom sizing, use polymarket_fill_risk), offering clear alternatives and 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?

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing caching (1h KV-level), internal model families, edge calculations, Kelly fractions, diagnostics, and tradeable-edge knobs. This provides rich behavioral context 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 long but densely informative, with front-loaded purpose and well-structured sections (model families, knobs, response structure). Every sentence adds value, though some consolidation could be done without losing clarity. Score 4 reflects effective conciseness given 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 (9 parameters, no output schema), the description thoroughly covers input knobs, output structure (by_segment, diagnostics), edge calculations, and constraints. It compensates well for the lack of an output schema, making it fully informative for agent use.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter interactions (e.g., min_kelly not filtering partition arbs, min_partition_leg_kelly applying to per-leg Kelly) and contextualizing knobs within the tradeable-edge framework. This extra context justifies a score of 4.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: scanning Polymarket markets for discrepancies between Pipeworx data and market prices, specifically for betting opportunities. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on Pipeworx data, and the detailed segmentation of model families provides further clarity.

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 the tool is built for 'what should I bet on today' and implies it is for discovering opportunities without manual paging. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool recommendations, limiting the score to 4.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context: snapshots on cache-miss, gaps mean no scan, decay from daily closes (not intraday), and explains response structure. 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?

Front-loaded purpose, structured with response fields and limits. Each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but not excessive.

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 response (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and limitations (TTL, gaps). Covers edge cases like expired opportunities and median lifespan. Complete for complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by explaining defaults (14 days, 1wk), constraints (max 30, clamp 2-30), and meaning ('window family'). Enhances understanding beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly states it tracks edge persistence and decay from polymarket_edges snapshots, answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?' It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges with a specific verb and resource.

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 when to use: assessing edge age/decay for trading decisions. Mentions optional args with defaults and limits (60-day TTL, gaps). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but clear enough.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: walks the ladder, returns verdicts (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), and warns about 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?

The description is organized and efficient: first line defines purpose, then REQUIRES one of market or event, then explains each mode, ending with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no fluff. Well front-loaded with key constraints.

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 lists all return fields for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc. for single; theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, etc. for basket). It also explains the dominant loss mode (partial basket fills converting arb to directional position), making it highly 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%, but the description adds significant context beyond schema: explains size_usd meaning per mode, default side logic for baskets (auto from partition sum), and clarifies each mode's return fields. This greatly aids parameter understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states it performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket). It uses specific verbs and resources, and stands out 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 instructs to use this tool before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage sell/buy-every-leg signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500. Explains why: theoretical overround may not be capturable and partial fills convert arb to directional risk.

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 significant behavioral context: explains that spreads are meaningful only when bet shapes are equivalent and temporal alignment exists, details safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped_cross counters), and clarifies that the spread is Kalshi minus Polymarket. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured with a clear introduction, modes, response fields, and safety warnings. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose and uses jargon that could be simplified. Every sentence adds value, but conciseness could be improved.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by explaining the response structure: venue prices, spread with top_spreads_pp, and safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped_cross counters). It covers key aspects but does not list all potential response fields explicitly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds substantial value: enumerates the 10 topic shortcuts, provides examples for explicit tickers, and explains that explicit parameters override the topic-mapped side. This goes 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 identifies the tool as computing cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It explicitly distinguishes two modes (topic shortcuts vs explicit tickers) and contrasts with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on cross-venue arbitrage.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each mode: topic for pre-mapped shortcuts, explicit for custom pairings. It warns that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility warnings, implying cautious usage. However, it does not directly compare to all sibling tools or explicitly state 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 provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds scoping details ('Scoped to your identifier') and the dual behavior (omit key lists all). Adds value 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 action and purpose, no wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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 (one optional param, read-only, idempotent) and no output schema, the description fully covers behavior, scoping, and relationships with siblings.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description explains 'omit the key argument' to list all keys, adding meaningful usage context 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve a value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys (omit the key argument).' It specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes 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?

Explicitly advises 'Use to look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch.' It mentions scoping and pairing with remember/forget, but does not explicitly state when not to use it. Still, 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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds important behavior: mark_read parameter affects future calls by flagging events as read, and mentions persistence. No contradictions.

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

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

Three sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second explains filtering and mark_read, third provides poll guidance and alternative access. Every sentence is informative 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?

With 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all parameters meaningfully, explains return fields, and provides additional context (alternative access, polling). Complete enough for effective use.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% but description adds real value: explains type filter with example, ISO timestamp for since, and the mark_read effect on subsequent calls. This goes beyond just repeating schema.

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

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

Clearly states the tool pulls fired events from subscription feeds, specifying verb 'pull' and resource 'fired events'. Differentiates from siblings like 'recent_observations' by emphasizing subscription-specific alerts and content details.

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

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

Provides context that polling works and mentions alternative endpoint for scripts. Does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or compare with siblings, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it fans out to multiple sources (SEC, GDELT/GNews, USPTO) with fallback behavior, mentions soft-fail for USPTO, and describes return structure. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with query examples and efficiently packs information about sources, fallback, and return values. Slightly dense but not verbose; could be broken into bullet points for better readability.

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 clearly explains the return format (structured changes grouped by source, total count, citation URIs). It also covers the parallel call behavior and source fallback logic, making it complete for a 3-parameter tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful guidance beyond schema: for 'since' it gives examples and recommends '30d' or '1m', for 'type' it clarifies only 'company' is supported, for 'value' it explains ticker or CIK formats.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides a change feed for a company, with specific query examples like 'What's new with X'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'entity_profile' by stating when to use each.

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

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

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool and when to use 'entity_profile' instead, providing clear context for AI agent decision-making.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the results are filtered to notable (rare, out-of-range, first-of-season) sightings, which is behavioral context 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 extremely concise with only two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a clarifying note. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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

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

Given the moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or output structure, but the output schema compensates. The description is functional but not rich.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional information about parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 returns 'notable (rare / out-of-range / first-of-season) sightings' in a region. It uses specific verbs and resource type, and the phrase 'most interesting subset' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'recent_observations' 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 implies usage when the user wants only notable sightings ('Only notable...'), but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like 'recent_alerts' or 'recent_observations'. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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, making the safety profile clear. The description adds format details but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and schema 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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a single paragraph efficiently. It covers essential details without unnecessary repetition.

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

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

Given the tool has an output schema, the description focuses on input parameters and usage context. It explains the region code format thoroughly and notes optional filtering, making it fairly complete for its complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value by explaining the region_code format with examples and mentioning species_code lookup via find_species. This goes 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 returns recent bird sightings in a region, with a specific verb and resource. It explains the region code format but does not differentiate from sibling tools like nearby_observations or recent_notable.

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 context on when to use (recent sightings by region) and explains region code format and optional species filter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among sibling tools.

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

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, etc.), description adds key details: scoping by identifier, persistence differences (authenticated vs anonymous, 24-hour retention). 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?

Compact, no redundant sentences. Purpose stated first, usage guidelines follow, behavioral details efficiently packed.

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 key-value store with no output schema, description covers all essential context: scoping, persistence, and tool pairing. 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% (baseline 3). Description adds value with examples of key conventions (e.g., 'subject_property') and clarifies value is any text, slightly enhancing 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?

Verb 'Save' with resource 'data the agent will need to reuse later' clearly defines the action. Examples and mention of sibling tools (recall, forget) distinguish it from alternatives.

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 ('discover something worth carrying forward') and pairs with recall and forget, providing clear context for usage vs 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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by stating it cascades through several lookup endpoints internally and auto-disambiguates.

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

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

Description is well-structured with front-loaded examples and clear sections. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose in the last sentence. No redundancy.

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

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

Given two entity types with different outputs and internal cascading, the description fully explains inputs, outputs, and purpose. No output schema exists, but textual description suffices.

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 enums and descriptions. Description adds significant detail: return fields (ticker, CIK, company_name, citation URI for company; RxCUI, ingredient, brand, citation for drug) and acceptable input formats (ticker, CIK, name; brand/generic name).

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 resolves user-spoken names to canonical identifiers, with specific examples like 'What's the ticker for...'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it replaces 2-3 manual lookups.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' Lists supported types and outputs. Does not directly compare to alternatives like compare_entities or entity_profile, but 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining it internally calls 'ai_visibility_check' for each entity, ranks by score, and returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. This goes beyond the 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 concise at four sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, internal operation, use case, and output format. No redundant or irrelevant 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 moderate complexity (composite probe) and good annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, how it works, and what it returns. Though there is no output schema, the description lists the returned fields (score, confidence, signal density). No missing information is critical for an agent to use 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the first entity in the array is treated as the 'subject' for narrative, and that 'context' is applied to every probe. This provides context beyond the schema's parameter 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 a specific verb ('Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side') and resource, and distinguishes from sibling 'ai_visibility_check' by clarifying it runs multiple probes and ranks results. It also contrasts with potential alternatives like 'compare_entities' by specifying the focus on AI visibility.

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: useful for competitive AI-marketing audits. It implicitly suggests when to use (multi-entity comparison) versus the sibling 'ai_visibility_check' (single entity), but does not explicitly state when not to use or give alternative tools. Still, the usage scenario is well-defined.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it's a composite fan-out to two services, partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed lists timed-out services. This goes beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is moderately long but front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value: explains composite nature, usage guidance, caveats about timing and partial failures, and return fields. Could be slightly tighter but still 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?

Given no output schema and 2 parameters, the description is quite complete. It covers composite behavior, services used, summary fields, failure modes, and ecosystem scope. Return structure is described at a high level but 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 descriptions for both parameters. Description adds that package names can be scoped (e.g., @types/node) and version defaults to latest. This provides additional nuance 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 performs a composite check for npm packages across deps.dev and bundlephobia, answering whether to add a package. It uses the specific verb 'scan' and resource 'dependency', and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning ecosystem limits and fallback tools for other ecosystems.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. Also specifies when not to use: 'PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly', providing clear 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?

Discloses technical details beyond annotations: embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity metric (cosine), window size (500-char overlapping), character limit (200K chars with truncation and flag), and output format (passages with offsets and scores). No contradiction with readOnlyHint 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?

Two well-structured sentences: first states core action and use case, second adds technical details. No redundancy, every clause adds value.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description explains return fields (passages, offsets, scores) and mentions truncation flag. Could specify exact structure of each passage, but sufficient for a 3-param tool with high schema 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 example queries and clarifies max chars for text, providing extra context that aids parameter understanding.

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

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

The description opens with a clear verb-resource statement 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' and gives concrete examples (SEC 10-K, article, long tool result). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and explains benefits: saves context, returns only relevant passages with offsets. Also mentions complementary tool (ask_pipeworx_grounded).

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 well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) by disclosing OAuth requirement, return of subscription id, webhook signing, auto-disable after failures, and delivery limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is well-organized with clear sections for types and delivery, but it is somewhat dense and could be slightly more concise without losing key 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?

Given the complexity (3 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all types, their parameters, delivery options, limitations, and the return value (subscription id), compensating fully for the missing output schema.

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

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

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds significant value by providing concrete examples for each type's params and explaining enum values, nested structures, and requirements (e.g., sponsor or condition for clinical_trial).

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 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream. Returns the new subscription id.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe.

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

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

The description explicitly requires a Pipeworx OAuth account, lists supported types, and details delivery channels with constraints (e.g., SMS must be verified, 10/day cap). This provides clear guidance on when and how to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, the context is sufficient.

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

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing what is returned (category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shapes). Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature, but description enriches understanding without contradiction.

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

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

Description is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. Front-loads with alternative phrasings and then details functionality. Could be slightly trimmed but overall 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return content. It is complete for an onboarding/discovery 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?

Although schema coverage is 100% with one optional parameter, the description adds meaning by listing example topic values and explaining behavior when omitted (full spread). This goes beyond the schema's brief 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?

Description clearly states the tool is an onboarding entry point that returns category-bucketed example questions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools by specifying its unique role in helping users discover what Pipeworx can do.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools', providing clear context. Lacks an explicit when-not list, but the context is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds critical details: row is deactivated (not deleted) and history stays available, ownership check. This enriches 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, no wasted words. First sentence states core action, second adds behavioral nuance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, behavior, and constraints adequately. No gaps for expected usage.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and already describes the id parameter well. Description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond confirming it's a subscription id from subscribe.

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

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

Clearly states the action 'Cancel a subscription by id' with a specific resource and identifier. Distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions by being the inverse operation.

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

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

Provides context: ownership enforcement and that historical events remain via recent_alerts. Does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the dual pipeline (SEC EDGAR for financials, grounded for others), that it returns a verdict with citation and reasoning, and that it replaces multiple sequential calls. 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 relatively long but well-organized, starting with trigger phrases and purpose, then detailing behavior and output. Each sentence provides unique information; there is minimal redundancy. Could be slightly shortened but remains efficient.

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

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

Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description fully covers the return value (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning) and explains the two processing paths. It 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?

Both parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds extra context: tolerance_pct overrides implied tolerance and suggests 1-2 for hallucination detection. This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.

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

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

The description starts with clear trigger phrases like 'Is it true that…' and explicitly states 'fact check' and 'verify the claim'. It defines the tool's purpose as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle different tasks.

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 instructs 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It differentiates between company-financial claims (fast path) and other claims (grounded pipeline), providing clear guidance on when each path is taken. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the coverage is adequate.

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