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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about what it returns (category-bucketed example questions with exact tool and argument shape) and how it behaves (call with no arguments for full spread, or pass topic to focus). This goes beyond the structured fields and helps the agent anticipate output.

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 more than two sentences but each sentence carries weight: example queries, return format, call patterns, and usage priority. It is structured with a clear flow, though slightly verbose; it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 explains the tool's input (optional topic), output (category-bucketed examples with tool+argument shape), and positioning (first step for onboarding). With no output schema, this description compensates well by detailing what the agent will receive and how to use the tool, making it complete for its simple single-parameter signature.

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 already covers the single optional 'topic' parameter with a complete list of allowed values. The description adds only redundant examples ('finance', 'pharma', 'betting') and does not introduce new semantic details, so it falls at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: the onboarding entry point for agents that want to know what to ask Pipeworx. It specifies the resource (Pipeworx capabilities) and the action (suggesting category-bucketed example questions), and distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as the 'first' step.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you', giving a clear when-to-use guideline. It also points to alternatives (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities) for learning how to call meta-tools, and provides example user intents that trigger the tool, making the usage context very clear.

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