Exa

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (per-model and combined view) and cost implications (free default, BYO key for Anthropic). No contradictions.

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

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

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, default+optional key, return shape, use cases. Front-loaded with the core function. No unnecessary 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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format. All parameters are covered, use cases are provided, and the tool's behavior is clear for its moderate 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%, baseline is 3. The description adds value with concrete examples for 'entity', lists supported models, explains the _apiKey purpose, and gives a disambiguation example for 'context'. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scores visibility (0-100). It specifies the default model and optional Anthropic probe, distinguishing it from generic search or entity profile tools among siblings.

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

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

The description lists use cases (marketing audits, brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains when to use the _apiKey for Anthropic. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is clear enough for most scenarios.

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, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral context: returns structured answers with pipeworx:// citation URIs, is one fast call, works on every tier, and routes to live news when relevant. It does not discuss failure modes or rate limits, but the annotations cover the critical safety profile.

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 longer than average, but it front-loads the most important guidance with 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and then adds routing rules, examples, and sibling alternatives. All included content serves a selection purpose. It is slightly repetitive in emphasizing being the default entry point, but the structure remains logical and easy to scan.

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 broad routing tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It tells the agent what question types to send here, what the answer looks like, how this tool differs from alternatives, and what happens with live news. Given the large sibling set, this is enough for a correct tool selection without opening schemas.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema documents that all six parameters are aliases for a single natural-language question. The description adds examples and clarifies the kind of input expected, but it does not add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the parameter semantics are adequately covered by structured data.

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

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

The description clearly states the action: ask a factual question, route it to the appropriate source among 5,706 tools, and return a structured answer with stable citation URIs. It differentiates itself from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research and explaining when each is the better choice. The examples and domain list reinforce what the tool does without ambiguity.

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

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

This is an explicit usage guide: it says to prefer over web search, enumerates domains, lists trigger phrases, gives concrete examples, and tells the agent when to step up to ask_pipeworx_grounded or deep_research. It even addresses breaking-news and live-news routing. There is no ambiguity about when this tool should be selected.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive safety. The description adds vital behavioral context: candidate routing improvements may be 'enabled live', currently 'no candidate is active', so it 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly', and it explicitly clarifies it 'falls back to nothing' and is a 'full working router'. This tells the agent the tool's behavior is volatile but currently identical, which is more than annotations alone 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?

Every sentence earns its place: beta identity, scope, current candidate state, usage direction, comparison purpose, and the clarification that it is a working router. The description is front-loaded with 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and is dense but compact for the complexity it conveys.

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

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

The description covers the operational essentials: it is a working router, experimental, currently identical to ask_pipeworx, has the same response shape, and is safe per annotations. It references the stable sibling for behavior and response expectations, which compensates for the missing output schema. Minor gap: no explicit warning of which environments are inappropriate for a beta tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each alias for the single question parameter described in the schema itself. The description only repeats that it takes 'the same arguments' as ask_pipeworx and does not add meaning about parameter content, syntax, or formatting. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully carries the parameter documentation.

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 identifies this as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx: 'identical universal router (same 5,706 tools, same arguments, same response shape)' and contrasts it with the stable router. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by framing itself as the experimental routing edge, and the phrase 'Ask Pipeworx Beta' plus 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx' makes the verb and resource unmistakable.

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

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing; results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges.' This states the condition for selecting the tool and implies ask_pipeworx as the stable alternative, but it does not explicitly list exclusions or mention the grounded sibling, so it is one step short of fully prescriptive.

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?

Though annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, the description goes well beyond them by detailing refusal reasons, the success response shape, the extra LLM call cost, and the strict 'only what the tool result contains' extraction policy. There is 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 each sentence carries necessary operational information. The core differentiator is front-loaded, success and refusal formats are compactly specified, and the cost/alternative guidance is placed at the end without redundancy.

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

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

There is no output schema, but the description fully specifies the success shape, refusal shape, all possible refusal reasons, and the source/evidence fields returned. Combined with complete parameter schema coverage and clear usage guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke this 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% and the schema already documents the 'question' parameter and all aliases. The description does not add much parameter-level detail beyond clarifying that the tool fills arguments internally, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly defines the tool as a hallucination-resistant answer mode that routes like ask_pipeworx but extracts answers only from tool results. It differentiates from the sibling ask_pipeworx by emphasizing evidence-grounded output and explicit refusals.

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

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

It explicitly states when to use: high-stakes reads where answers will be quoted, cited, or acted on and where inventing facts is unacceptable. It also gives an exclusion condition and alternative by saying to prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups because this tool costs an extra LLM call.

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

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

The description goes far beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It details safety mechanisms (low-confidence match short-circuit, closed market status, wide-spread illiquidity), resolver contract with confidence levels, parent event extraction, and resolution-rule risk. 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 dense but well-structured, front-loading purpose and examples. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise given its length. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, rich behavior), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers response shapes, resolver contract, parent event extractor, news fields, safety, and resolution-rule risk. No gaps remain.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful context: explains what the 'market' parameter accepts (slug, URL, question text), what 'depth' does (quick vs thorough), and what 'include_raw' does. This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies input types (slug, URL, question text) and output (evidence packet + comparison). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on general bet research rather than specific edge or arbitrage analysis.

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

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

The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' It also includes classifiers and fan-out examples. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or explicitly name alternatives among siblings.

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

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL, FAERS), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and the inclusion of citation URIs. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description 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?

The description is front-loaded with example queries, then states the purpose, then details data sources and behavior. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary repetition. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the 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 complexity of comparing two entity types with multiple data sources, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what data is pulled, how results are sorted, and that citations are returned. Although there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the return characteristics.

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

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

The schema covers both parameters, but the description adds meaning by specifying that 'company' type pulls revenue/net income/cash/debt, and 'drug' type pulls FAERS/FDA/trial counts. It also gives examples for 'values' (tickers/CIKs for companies, drug names) and reinforces constraints. This goes well beyond the schema alone.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool performs side-by-side comparisons of 2-5 companies or drugs in a single parallel call. It uses specific verbs like 'compare' and 'rank' and distinguishes from sequential single-entity lookups, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 instructs the agent to 'always prefer' this tool over sequential lookups when comparing entities, and provides example queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it, such as for comparisons beyond 5 entities or different entity types.

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 the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: account/tier requirements, the facet-decomposition and parallel-routing mechanism, gaps[] signaling unanswered facets with 'never invented', contradictions[] for standard/thorough, citation_uri present only when fetchable, semantic excerpting instead of head-truncation, and latency ranges. This is far richer than the annotation hints alone.

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 (~380 words) but dense with high-value operational details and front-loaded with the most critical gate (account requirement). A few passages, such as the citation_uri fetchability explanation, are slightly wordy, but every sentence conveys actionable information; light segmenting would earn a 5.

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 no output schema present, the description fully carries the return-format burden and does so thoroughly: findings packet fields, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, citation_uri resolvability, and timing expectations. It also covers prerequisites, failure modes, and alternatives for a highly complex tool, leaving nothing essential for an agent to infer.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema's depth description is already detailed, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying depth semantics with behavioral consequences ('standard re-angles unanswered gaps', 'thorough additionally chases the best leads') and giving concrete example questions for the question parameter, justifying a 4.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1493 STRUCTURED data sources' achieved by decomposing questions into facets and routing to tools IN PARALLEL. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from sibling ask_pipeworx, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and when-not-to-use guidance, naming ask_pipeworx as the alternative for single lookups and for breaking/colloquial current-news topics. It also states the account prerequisite and tells unsigned-in agents to use ask_pipeworx instead.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it returns top-N most relevant tools with full schemas ready to call, which is useful. 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?

Description is somewhat long but front-loaded with key information and well-structured. It effectively communicates purpose and usage without excess.

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

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

No output schema, but description explains what is returned (names, descriptions, schemas with examples). Parameter coverage is complete, so no gaps. Provides 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%, but description adds value by listing aliases for query, providing examples, and noting limit default. This helps the agent understand parameter flexibility.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool discovers tools by describing data or task, listing many domains. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a discovery tool, not a single-answer 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?

Explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' Provides clear context on when to use and 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description goes further by detailing the data sources fanned out (SEC, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF), the specific data returned, and the patent soft-fail condition for May 2025. 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?

Description is lengthy but information-dense. It starts with example queries, states the core purpose, then lists all data sources and return fields in a structured way. Every paragraph adds value, but slight trimming could improve conciseness.

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

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

No output schema, so description fully explains return values: cik, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals sorted by period, patents with deprecation note, news fallback, LEI. For a complex multi-source tool, this is exhaustive and leaves no ambiguity.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the zero-padded CIK format, that ticker or CIK is required, and names not supported (use resolve_entity). This provides useful context not in the schema.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool provides a holistic cross-source profile of a US public company, with specific examples of user queries. It distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_entity and search by being a one-call alternative to chaining multiple 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 advises to prefer this tool over chaining individual lookups when a holistic view is needed. Specifies that names are not supported, directing to resolve_entity first, which provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds return fields (title, URL, relevance score, published date), providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

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

Two sentences plus an example; every word is informative, no fluff or repetition. Front-loaded with purpose and returns.

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 mentions return fields. It lacks details on error handling or rate limits but covers essential info for a read-only tool with clear annotations.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description's example reinforces usage but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 finds pages similar to a given URL using neural/semantic matching, which distinguishes it from sibling search tools that likely use keyword-based or other methods.

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 for semantic similarity via 'neural/semantic matching' and provides a concrete example, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with 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?

Description aligns with annotations: 'delete' matches destructiveHint=true. It adds value by clarifying the intended use case (clearing sensitive data) beyond what annotations offer. 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, each adding essential value: first states action, second provides usage guidance. Front-loaded with the primary function. No wasted words.

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

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

For a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, use cases, and related tools. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the parameter 'key' described as 'Memory key to delete'. The description does not add new information 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?

Description clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key' – a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings 'remember' and 'recall' by mentioning them, establishing the tool's focused role.

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: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' Also suggests pairing with 'remember' and 'recall', providing clear context and 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds detail on the extraction process (fetches page, extracts title/description/key links) and output format, 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?

Description is concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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

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

For a simple tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description fully covers inputs, process, and output format. No gaps identified.

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

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

Schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what schema already provides, but is adequate.

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 generates an llms.txt file for AI crawlers, with specific verb ('generate') and resource ('production-ready llms.txt file'). It distinguishes from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on the standard llms.txt format.

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

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

Description includes explicit use cases such as getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, or auditing competitors. Provides context but does not define when not to use or contrast with specific siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool returns 'clean, parsed' content, implying transformation. It does not disclose error handling or rate limits, but the annotations cover the main behavioral traits, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus an example in a code block. Every sentence adds value and there is 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 moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns (clean, parsed text) and how to use it. It does not cover edge cases like invalid IDs, but for a simple retrieval tool this is acceptable.

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 both parameters are well-documented. The description provides a usage example that reinforces parameter usage but does not add meaning significantly beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'retrieve', the resource 'clean, parsed page contents', and the scope 'for one or more Exa result IDs or URLs'. It also positions itself as a follow-up to search, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search'.

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

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

The description explicitly states 'Use after search to read the full content of pages', providing clear usage context. It does not list explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds the returned fields and optional parameter, providing context beyond annotations.

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

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

Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded. No fluff.

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

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

For a simple listing tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete and 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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the include_inactive parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 lists the caller's active subscriptions, with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe/unsubscribe.

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

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

Provides explicit use cases: reviewing what you're monitoring before adding more, or finding an id to cancel. No when-not-to-use, 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?

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations, including rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the output mechanism ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later'), and that it's free and does not count against quota. These details help the agent understand side effects and usage limits, which is especially valuable given the annotations only say readOnlyHint:false and destructiveHint:false without further 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?

The description is longer than average but packed with necessary guidance. It front-loads the core purpose and then covers usage timing, exclusions, message guidelines, token mechanics, rate limits, and quota impact. Each sentence contributes value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., restating 'Pipeworx' multiple times). It earns a 4 rather than a 5 because a slightly more streamlined version could be clearer without losing 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?

The description fully covers the tool's complexity: it explains all parameter semantics, edge cases (non-Pipeworx tools), return behavior (claim_token), rate limits, and the human workflow (team reads digests daily). Given the tool has nested objects and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly without further external knowledge.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema, such as instructing users to 'Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt' for the message parameter and explaining the claim_token flow. While the schema already documents claim_token, the message guidance is genuinely useful and goes beyond the field 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: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It uses a specific verb (tell/send) and resource (Pipeworx team), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on feedback rather than research/search. The categories of feedback (bug, feature, etc.) are explicitly listed.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise).' It also clearly states when NOT to use it: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This directly helps the agent decide between this tool and 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds valuable behavioral details: data source (CF analytics-engine), no PII, caching strategy (5min-1h depending on window). No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Two paragraphs with front-loaded purpose. Slightly wordy but each sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly, but overall 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 tool simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), description covers purpose, use cases, data source, caching, and parameter semantics. Complete and informative for an AI 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 covers the single parameter with enum and description (100% coverage). Description adds extra context on window semantics (shorter for hot, longer for steady-state), enhancing understanding beyond schema.

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

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

Clearly states it returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window. Distinct from siblings like discover_tools or search by focusing on aggregated trending data rather than querying or searching for 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?

Provides three explicit use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tool, aligning use case) and hints at window selection trade-offs. Could improve by explicitly stating when NOT to use it or comparing to similar tools like discover_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?

Discloses detailed behavior beyond annotations: fill check, semantic anchor with Jaccard similarity, partition filter, response format. No contradictions with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint.

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 comprehensive and logically structured with overview, mode details, and edge cases. While lengthy, every sentence adds necessary context; front-loaded with primary purpose.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (opportunities array, partition_check object) and covers both modes fully. No gaps identified.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions; the tool description enriches them by explaining the internal logic for each mode (e.g., walking child markets, checking ordering, cross-event searching). Adds value beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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 describes when to use 'event' mode for a specific market, 'topic' for cross-event scanning, and no args for trending scan. Also warns when not to trade based on fill check and redirects to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds extensive behavioral context: detailed model families, response segments, tradeable-edge filters, caching (1h at KV level), diagnostics, and explanation of output fields like edge_pp_net, kelly_fraction, and 24h-move warning. It also explains rare conditions for concentrated_longshot. 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 comprehensive but verbose (several paragraphs). However, it is well-structured with clear headings (MODEL_DRIVEN, STRUCTURAL_ARBITRAGE, CONCENTRATED_LONGSHOT, TRADEABLE-EDGE KNOBS, RESPONSE TOP-LEVEL). The main purpose and usage are front-loaded. Could be slightly more concise, but the structure earns a 4.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, multiple model families), the description is very complete. It covers all response segments, diagnostics, caching, and special cases (Fed bets, thin partitions). It also explains the output fields and their meaning. No gaps found.

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. However, the description adds substantial meaning beyond schema: default values, acceptable ranges, effects on results (e.g., slippage_pp explains Polymarket fees, min_partition_leg_kelly explains why min_kelly doesn't filter partition arbs). It also provides examples like 'Set to 5000 to drop thin-book opportunities'. This makes the parameters highly understandable.

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: 'Scan top Polymarket markets and return opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price'. It specifies the verb (scan/return), resource (Polymarket markets with Pipeworx disagreement), and distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edge_tracker by focusing on edge detection. The use case 'what should I bet on today' is immediately clear.

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

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

The description provides clear context on when to use (discover opportunities without paging) and includes guidance on edge knobs like min_liquidity and max_spread_pp. It also mentions Fed bets are excluded from ranking with a reason. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: snapshot-based, decay computed on absolute value, negative for SELL YES, expired opportunities, and TTL 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 lengthy but well-structured: purpose first, then response format, then limits. Every sentence adds unique information. Could be slightly more concise, but the density of useful details justifies the length.

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

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

Without an output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) and covers limitations (60-day TTL, snapshot gaps). This is comprehensive for a tool with only two optional parameters.

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 value by explaining default values (14 days, '1wk'), clamp range (2-30), and window options (24hr, 1wk, 1mo), which are not in 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 provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' and answers a specific question about edge duration. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'polymarket_edges' by focusing on time-series and decay, not just snapshots.

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 for evaluating edge persistence but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'polymarket_edges'. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, which leaves some ambiguity.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it walks the ladder, returns top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage, and a verdict, and details basket-mode risks like thin legs and forced directional risk. 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?

Despite its length, the description is well-structured with headers (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, USE THIS) and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds necessary detail; there is no fluff. The structure aids quick comprehension for both modes.

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 no output schema, the description exhaustively lists return fields for both modes: top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict, theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg detail, thin_legs, max_clean_notional_usd, and forced_directional_risk. This completely informs the agent of what to expect.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%. The description enriches each parameter: side has mode-specific defaults, market and event are clearly disambiguated for single vs basket mode, size_usd explains intent (spend vs proceeds vs settlement notional) and clamping range (10–1,000,000). This goes well 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 performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' with distinct single-market and basket modes. It is specific about the verb (check, evaluate) and resource (order-book depth), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on fill risk.

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

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

The description explicitly advises using this tool 'before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500', providing a clear when-to-use criterion. It also explains why partial basket fills convert arb into unhedged directional positions, giving compelling reasons for using the tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, but the description adds a wealth of behavioral context far beyond that: safety fields that can be non-empty even when matched_pairs>0, a full compatibility-code catalog, the hard rule that unknown metric_type/match_subtype legs are NEVER paired, the skipped_cross_type/subtype counters, and temporal_alignment semantics. This is exemplary disclosure of edge-case behavior.

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

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

The purpose is front-loaded and the structure is logical (purpose → modes → response → safety → caveats), and nearly every sentence earns its place. But at roughly 280 dense words with six compatibility codes and multiple counter names in a single block, it is not concise and would be heavy for an agent to parse efficiently.

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 no output schema, the description carries full responsibility for explaining return values — and it does: leg-by-leg prices, top_spreads_pp, compatibility_warning/codes, temporal_alignment, skipped counters, and low_confidence_pairs. For a 0-required-param tool with this much subtlety (unverifiable pairings, unclassified legs), nothing an agent needs to interpret results correctly is missing.

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% (all three params described), so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining the mode structure — the topic list maps to both venues simultaneously, while kalshi_event_ticker and polymarket_event_slug 'override the topic-mapped' side — which is a behavioral relationship not present in the schema itself.

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 opening sentence — 'Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question' — names a specific verb (compute cross-venue spread), both resources, and the scope (same resolving question). It distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by the explicit 'cross-venue' framing and by naming both venues.

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 clearly lays out TWO MODES — topic shortcuts versus explicit ticker/slug pairing — and explains when each applies, including that explicit values override the mapped side. It also sets expectations with 'most pre-mapped topics return compatibility_warning today; pre-mapped ≠ tradeable.' However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with sibling alternatives (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage), so the when-not-to-use guidance is incomplete.

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, destructiveHint=false. Description adds scoping behavior: 'Scoped to your identifier (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, or account ID)' and explains listing mode. 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?

Three focused sentences: purpose, usage, scoping. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action.

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

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

Despite no output schema, description covers what the tool returns: a value or list of keys. Could explicitly mention return format (string or list) but is largely complete for a simple retrieval 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?

Input schema covers 100% with description for 'key'. Description adds semantics: 'omit the key argument' to list all keys, clarifying usage beyond schema. No other parameters to document.

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 retrieves a saved value or lists all keys using 'Retrieve a value... or list all saved keys'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'remember' and 'forget' by mentioning them as paired operations.

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: 'look up context... without re-deriving it from scratch'. Implicitly indicates not to use for saving or deleting by referencing 'remember' and 'forget'. Provides scoping context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use for specific scenarios.

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 claims that setting mark_read:true flags events as read, which is a write operation, directly contradicting the readOnlyHint:true annotation. Although the description is transparent about the side effect, the contradiction downgrades the score to 1.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, then sequentially adds parameter details, side effect, and alternative access. It is efficient but slightly verbose; could be tightened without losing clarity.

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

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

Covers what is returned (source, citation_uri, payload), filter options, side effect, and alternative REST access. No output schema, so description compensates well. Lacks error handling or rate limits, but annotations cover safety.

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

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

Schema covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description adds value: example type 'sec_8k', explanation of mark_read's effect on future calls, and clarification that since is ISO timestamp. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, but the added context justifies a 4.

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

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

The description clearly states it pulls fired events from the subscription feed, using specific verbs and resource ('Pull fired events'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions by focusing on alerts with source, citation_uri, and payload.

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 context: filter by type, since, mark_read, unread_only, and mentions polling works and alternative REST endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to similar tools (e.g., search).

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

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as fan-out to multiple sources, fallback from GDELT to GNews, and soft-fail for USPTO due to API sunset. It does not contradict any annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with example questions and is well-structured, but it is somewhat lengthy. However, each sentence contributes value, including fallback behavior and alternative tool 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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, sources, parameter details, return structure, and fallback behavior. It is fully informative.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds useful context like relative shorthand examples for 'since' and clarifies the 'type' enum restriction, going slightly beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly defines the tool as a change feed for a company over a time window, with example queries. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'entity_profile' by explicitly stating when to use that instead.

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

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

The description provides explicit context for when to use this tool (e.g., for recent changes) and when to use 'entity_profile' instead. It also includes example queries, making it easy for the agent to decide.

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?

Adds details beyond annotations: key-value pair scoped by identifier, 24-hour retention for anonymous, persistent for authenticated. Annotations only provide idempotentHint=true and non-destructive. No contradictions.

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

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

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, no extraneous wording. Each sentence adds value.

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

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

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers storage semantics, scoping, and retention. Sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description provides example keys (subject_property, target_ticker) and clarifies value as 'any text'. This adds contextual meaning beyond the schema's generic 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?

Description clearly states 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like recall and forget by explicitly mentioning them.

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

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

Describes when to use: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward'. Also explains persistence differences for authenticated vs anonymous users. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the 'use when' guidance 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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: cascade through multiple lookup endpoints, explicit listing of unresolved identifiers under `unresolved`, and graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment when external sources are unavailable. These details manage agent expectations about partial results and fallback behavior 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then well-organized by entity type. It is lengthy but each sentence carries substance—no filler. The graceful-degradation note and 'replaces 2-3 manual lookups' justify the length.

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

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining return-relevant behavior: identifiers labelled by source, unresolved identifications, and fallback when external lookups fail. It covers edge cases and scope well, leaving little ambiguity about what the tool will produce.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (100% coverage), the description adds semantic depth for `value` by specifying accepted formats (ticker, CIK, ISIN, company name) and giving an ISIN example that resolves to the issuing legal entity via GLEIF. This goes beyond the schema's 'or name' phrasing.

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 concrete example queries and explicitly states the core function: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as the first step for ID lookup, supported by 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.'

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

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

Clear directive 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' tells the agent exactly when to select this tool. It also scopes usage with SUPPORTED TYPES (company, drug) and notes that it 'replaces 2-3 manual lookups,' reinforcing its role as a direct resolver.

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). Description adds process details (probes each entity, ranks by score) and output structure (score, confidence, signal density per entity). 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, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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

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

Despite no output schema, description fully describes output (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). All aspects are covered given tool 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% with good descriptions. Description adds critical detail: 'First entry treated as the "subject" for narrative; rest are competitors.' This adds meaning beyond schema for the 'entities' parameter.

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 verb 'Compare' and resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities'. Distinguishes from sibling tool 'ai_visibility_check' which is for single entity. Provides specific use case example.

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 it's useful for competitive AI-marketing audits and gives an example question. Implies it should be used over single-entity check when comparing multiple entities, but doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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

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

The description adds rich behavioral details beyond annotations: fans out across deps.dev and bundlephobia, timing for bundlephobia first measurement (5-30s), partial failure handling with sources_failed, and exact return structure (summary, advisories, links, alternatives). Annotations already confirm idempotent/read-only, so no contradiction.

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

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

The description is comprehensive but a bit long. However, it front-loads key purpose and usage, and each sentence adds value. Minor conciseness improvements possible, 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 no output schema, the description adequately covers return structure and important behavioral nuances (partial failures, ecosystem scope). It lacks explicit key details like default version behavior or exact format of 'links', but is fairly complete for a complex tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The description adds minor context (scoped packages accepted, version defaults to latest) but does not significantly expand beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool checks npm packages for safety, popularity, size, and cost via multiple sources. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying npm-only in v1, contrasting with other ecosystems handled elsewhere.

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 (safety, popularity, size queries) and mentions ecosystem limitations. It also explains partial failure behavior, but does not provide explicit 'when-not-to-use' beyond ecosystem scope.

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 value by specifying return fields (title, URL, date, author, score) and the option to include clean page text, providing context beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is concise (3 sentences plus an example) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with 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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers return fields and optional text retrieval. It is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description includes an example that reinforces usage but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 neural/semantic web search, distinguishes from keyword search, and lists return fields. It differentiates from sibling tools like search_within by emphasizing meaning-based search.

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

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

The description provides a clear example and states the tool is for finding pages by meaning. It implicitly distinguishes from keyword search via the 'type' parameter, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only operation; the description adds details about truncation at 200K chars, embedding model, windowing, and that passages include offsets and scores, going 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?

Dense single paragraph with no wasted words; purpose, usage, technical details, and pairing are efficiently 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 no output schema, details like return format (passages with offsets and scores), limits, and embedding model provide full contextual coverage for an AI 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 covers all parameters, but description adds meaningful context: truncation for 'text', example queries for 'query', and default/range for 'limit', enriching 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 semantic search inside a fetched record, using examples like SEC 10-K and articles, and distinguishes it from other tools by emphasizing context-saving and pairings.

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

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

Explicitly says when to use (record too large for prompt) and offers an alternative (pair with ask_pipeworx_grounded), providing clear guidance.

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

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the need for OAuth, SMS caps, and webhook signing. However, it does not explicitly confirm idempotency as hinted by 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 is slightly lengthy; however, every sentence adds value given the tool's complexity.

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

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

The description covers usage, types, delivery options, and constraints comprehensively, though it lacks explicit return structure beyond the subscription id.

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 significant value by providing concrete examples and constraints for type-specific params and delivery channels.

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

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

The description explicitly states the tool creates a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream, differentiating it from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe.

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

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (proactive monitoring) and notes the OAuth requirement, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

Discloses that it returns category-bucketed example questions with tool+argument shape, drawn from a live catalog. No contradictions with annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive). Adds rich context beyond annotations.

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

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

Well-structured with clear sections, but slightly verbose. Could be trimmed without losing key info. Still, every sentence adds value and it is front-loaded with purpose.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description adequately explains output format and usage. No gaps for agent understanding.

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 description for topic. The description adds usage semantics: 'Call with no arguments for full spread, or pass topic to focus.' This provides more meaning than 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 uses a specific verb (suggest questions) and identifies it as the onboarding entry point. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it returns 'exact tool + argument shape' and contrasts with meta-tools like ask_pipeworx.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you' and explains when to use with/without topic argument. Provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

Beyond annotations that mark it as non-destructive, the description adds critical behavior: 'row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.' This discloses the soft-delete nature, enhancing 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?

Two sentences front-load purpose and behavioral constraints. No wasted words; every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage constraint, and behavioral outcome. Relationships to subscribe and recent_alerts are implied.

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

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

With 100% schema coverage including parameter description, the tool description adds only 'by id' and ownership context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already provides meaning.

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

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

The description uses specific verb 'Cancel' and resource 'subscription by id', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions. It reinforces the title with actionable detail.

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 ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with 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 mark it as read-only and idempotent; the description adds crucial semantics for could_not_verify vs. unsupported, explains the two pipelines (SEC EDGAR vs. grounded), and clarifies that could_not_verify is not evidence. 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?

Though longer than typical, the description is front-loaded with trigger phrases, organized by pipeline, and ends with an efficiency note. Each sentence adds value; there is no fluff.

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

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

With no output schema, the description fully specifies return values (verdicts, value with citation, reasoning), error semantics, and scope. This is complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context on tolerance behavior and financial claim math, but this is largely redundant with the schema, so only slight added value.

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

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

The description clearly defines the tool as natural-language claim verification with trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that.' It distinguishes financial claims (SEC EDGAR path) from other factual claims and lists verdict types, making it easily distinguishable from siblings like search or 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?

The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also covers the full scope (any factual claim) and mentions replacing sequential calls, implying it's the preferred consolidated approach.

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