Gmail

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: it probes multiple LLMs, requires own API key for Anthropic, and returns per-model results. 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 3-4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return shape (per-model and combined view). It covers all necessary invocation details: required entity, optional models with defaults, API key requirement, and disambiguation context. Complete for its complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds slight value by mentioning default model and BYO key implication, but mostly repeats what's in the schema. Adequate but not significantly enhanced.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'probe' and resource 'LLMs' for business visibility, with specific output format and default model. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx) which are not about general LLM visibility probing.

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

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

The description mentions use cases: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context is clear and appropriate.

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, open-world, idempotent. Description adds value by explaining it routes to 3,745 tools and returns stable citation URIs, providing insight into the internal mechanism without contradicting annotations.

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

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

Description is comprehensive but well-organized. Key phrase 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' is front-loaded. Some redundancy in listing sources and examples, but each sentence contributes to clarity. Could be slightly more concise.

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

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

Despite missing output schema, description explains it returns structured answers with stable URIs. Given the tool's complexity and wide scope, this provides enough context for an agent to understand the return value and behavior.

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 aliases for 'question', and description restates this adequately. No additional parameter details beyond the schema, but schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Clearly states the tool's purpose: answering factual questions using structured data from verified sources. Provides specific examples and contrasts with web search, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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

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

Explicitly says 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and lists many use cases (SEC filings, FDA data, etc.). Includes example queries. Lacks explicit 'when not to use', but the guidance is sufficient for an AI agent.

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

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

Adds significant value beyond annotations by describing the refusal mechanism, extraction logic, and behavior details. Annotations already indicate safety, but description explains the 'only from tool result' constraint.

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

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

Single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. Could be slightly more structured, but not overly verbose.

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

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

Covers return format, failure modes, routing behavior, and cost trade-off. No output schema, but description provides sufficient detail for agent decision-making.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. Description only reiterates that multiple aliases are accepted, adding minimal new 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?

Clearly defines a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, explains the process of routing and extraction, and distinguishes from ask_pipeworx by noting the extra cost and use case.

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 (answers that will be quoted, cited, or acted on) and when to prefer ask_pipeworx (casual lookups). Provides specific examples of high-stakes domains.

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

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

The description goes far beyond annotations, detailing low-confidence match handling, closed market behavior, wide spread indicators, resolution-rule risk, parent event extraction, and news fallback mechanisms. 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 long but efficiently organized with sections and every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with purpose and use cases, but could be slightly more concise.

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

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

Given the complexity of the tool and lack of output schema, the description covers response shapes, edge cases, blocking mechanisms, and safety features comprehensively.

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 adds valuable context for each parameter, including examples for 'market', enum meanings for 'depth', and detailed explanation for 'include_raw'.

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 'Research' and the resource 'Polymarket bet', and explains it pulls Pipeworx data. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Polymarket bet research, which is unique among the listed 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?

Explicit use cases are provided: 'should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', 'is there edge in Z'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives like ask_pipeworx or deep_research.

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

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: explains results are sorted by primary metric, returns paired data with citation URIs, and correctly handles off-calendar fiscal years. Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive, and description fully aligns.

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 a single informative paragraph with front-loaded query examples. Every sentence adds value, but slight restructuring (e.g., separating type-specific details) could improve scanability. Still, very concise given the information conveyed.

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

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

No output schema exists, but description explains return format (paired data + citation URIs). It covers both entity types in depth, mentions edge cases (off-calendar fiscal years), and states the number of sequential lookups replaced (8-15). This is complete for a comparison tool with 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 covers both parameters (type, values) with descriptions. Description enriches by explaining the type enum (company pulls 10-K, drug pulls FAERS) and provides concrete examples for values (tickers/CIKs for company, drug names). Even with 100% schema coverage, the description adds valuable context 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?

Description clearly states it performs side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in a single parallel call. Provides concrete query examples and explicitly distinguishes from sequential single-pack lookups, a sibling approach.

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

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

Explicitly advises when to use this tool over sequential lookups, with 'ALWAYS PREFER'. For each entity type, it details what data is pulled (10-K for companies, FAERS for drugs), enabling informed selection. No explicit when-not needed given the strong preference guidance.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: tool decomposes questions, routes to 3,745 tools in parallel, returns gaps[], requires account authentication, and has variable latency. 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 about 5 sentences, dense with information, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value (usage, mechanism, requirements, timing). 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 tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, workflow, use cases, prerequisites, limitations, and expected time. The absence of output schema is compensated by describing the structured findings packet with gaps. Context signals confirm no additional needed info.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both params. The description adds meaning by explaining the depth enum values (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8 with paid plan) and clarifying that question is natural language and decomposition is automatic. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states it performs 'grounded multi-source research in ONE call' and explains the decomposition and parallel retrieval process. It also distinguishes itself from sibling ask_pipeworx by noting it handles broad/multi-part questions while ask_pipeworx is for single 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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use for broad or multi-part questions' and 'use ask_pipeworx for single lookups.' It also mentions prerequisites (Pipeworx account, paid plan for 'thorough' depth) and approximate time (15-60s).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: returns top-N tools with full schemas, ready-to-call results, and no need for second schema lookup. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, from use cases to output specifics. 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 tool's complexity and absence of output schema, the description fully explains the output (top-N tools, schemas included, ready to call). It is complete for an agent to decide when to use and 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%, so baseline 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mainly repeating aliases and the natural language nature. The schema itself provides adequate 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 clearly states the tool discovers tools based on a description of data or task, with specific examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly recommending to call this first before other tools.

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

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

The description provides clear context on when to use (browsing, searching, discovery) and strongly suggests calling it first. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparison with siblings, but the use case is well-defined.

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

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

The description details the tool's behavior beyond annotations: fans out across multiple sources, returns specific fields, notes USPTO soft-fail. 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?

Somewhat verbose but every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with example queries. Could be more concise, but structure is functional.

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?

Comprehensively describes all return fields and edge cases (patent soft-fail, name handling). No output schema, so this level of detail is appropriate and complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful guidance about value format (zero-padded CIK) and limitations (names not supported).

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: generating a full cross-source profile of a US public company. It lists multiple example queries and specifies the output fields.

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 advice ('ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack...lookups') and when-not-to-use ('names not supported, use resolve_entity first').

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

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so description adds minimal behavioral context beyond specifying 'by key'. Does not contradict annotations, but adds little extra value.

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

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

Two sentences: first states purpose, second provides usage guidelines. Front-loaded and concise 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and sibling tools. It does not describe return values, but that is acceptable for such a straightforward operation.

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 'key' parameter described as 'Memory key to delete'. Description merely restates purpose without adding new parameter insights, so baseline 3 applies.

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' with a specific verb (delete) and resource (memory), and distinguishes from siblings (remember, recall) by indicating the deletion counterpart.

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' and pairs with siblings 'remember and recall', providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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

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

The description explains the process: fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard format. Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, confirming safe 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and audience, second explains the process and output. Very concise, no wasted words, front-loaded with the most important 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 explains what the tool does, how it works, and the output format. Given the tool's simplicity and good annotations, it covers all necessary context for an agent to use it 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 description adds value by stating the default for max_links (25) and the maximum (50), which is not in the schema. This helps the agent choose appropriate values.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool generates a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL, specifying the output format and naming specific AI crawlers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its specific purpose.

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

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

The description provides explicit use cases (getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitors) which guide when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by listing what is returned (headers, body, attachments, etc.), which is not fully covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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

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

Description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then summarizing return data. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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

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

For a simple fetch tool with full schema coverage, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description provides a complete summary of the tool's behavior and return fields. No gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining the format enum or message_id format) 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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'full email details', and the scope 'by message ID'. It lists specific return fields (headers, subject, etc.), making the purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like gmail_list_messages or gmail_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?

Description implies usage when you have a message ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like gmail_search or gmail_list_messages. No when-not or alternative comparisons are given.

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 context about returning label names and IDs and including system folders, which is useful beyond annotations.

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

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

Two sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with the core 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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns.

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?

No parameters exist (0 params), so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all your labels including system folders', distinguishing it from sibling tools like gmail_get_message or gmail_list_messages.

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 retrieving labels but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds return types (IDs, preview text) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or auth requirements, which are not needed given the hints. With annotations covering safety, 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and 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 tool's simplicity, presence of output schema, and comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description covers all necessary context for safe invocation without omission.

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 schema already fully documents parameters. The description mentions filtering by label/read status but does not add new meaning beyond what the query parameter description provides. 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 it lists messages with optional filtering by label or read status, and explicitly contrasts with gmail_search for complex queries, providing a specific verb+resource and sibling differentiation.

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

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

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (simple filtering) and when to use the alternative ('Use gmail_search for complex queries like date ranges or attachments'), leaving no 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns message IDs, which is useful but not extensive. 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 efficient sentences: first states purpose and syntax, second states output. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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

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

Given the low parameter count, full schema coverage, and presence of annotations and output schema, the description is sufficient. It could mention pagination, but not necessary.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. The examples illustrate usage, but the description does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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

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

The description clearly states it searches emails using Gmail query syntax and returns matching message IDs. It uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('emails'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like gmail_get_message and gmail_list_messages.

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 examples and explains the query syntax, giving clear context on how to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the purpose is self-evident among the sibling list.

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 says 'send an email,' which is a write operation consistent with readOnlyHint=false. However, the idempotentHint=true annotation contradicts typical email sending behavior (sending the same email twice results in two sends). The description does not clarify this or mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens on success/failure.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that appropriately front-loads the core purpose. It is concise, but includes reference to features (reply-to, file attachments) not present in the schema, which could cause confusion. Every part earns its place, but the inaccuracy detracts slightly.

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 (5 parameters, 3 required) and presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it fails to mention important context such as prerequisites, idempotency implications, or how to handle errors. The inclusion of features not in the schema indicates incompleteness.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter's meaning. The description adds minimal value beyond summarizing the required fields and listing optional features that are partially missing from the schema (reply-to, attachments). This meets the baseline expectation 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 sends an email with recipient, subject, and body, which is the core function. It also lists optional features like CC, BCC, reply-to, and attachments. However, the input schema does not include parameters for reply-to or file attachments, making the description somewhat misleading about available capabilities.

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

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

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., gmail_search, gmail_list_messages). The name implies sending, but there is no discussion of prerequisites, alternative tools, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate.

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. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned, which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but given the annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 two sentences: first states the main purpose and output, second provides usage guidance. Every sentence is essential; no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core 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?

Given the low parameter count (1), no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers everything needed: the tool's action, output fields, and when to use it. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage for the single parameter (include_inactive) is 100%, as the schema itself has a description. The tool description does not elaborate on this parameter, but the schema already explains it. Therefore, the description adds no additional value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions and enumerates the returned fields (id, type, params, timestamps, fire_count). This differentiates it from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe, which perform different actions.

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 provides usage context: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool and for what purpose, offering 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?

Beyond annotations (which show no special hints), the description adds critical behavioral details: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free and doesn't count against quota, and that the team reads digests daily affecting roadmap. 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 concise (5 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and parameter semantics completely. An agent can confidently use this tool based solely on the description.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the context behind each 'type' enum value and the recommended message length (1-2 sentences, 2000 chars max), which helps the agent craft appropriate feedback.

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 specifies the exact use cases (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and distinguishes it from sibling tools which are all for other tasks like research, email, or entity management.

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

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

The description explicitly tells when to use each feedback type: '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 advises against pasting end-user prompts, providing clear do's and don'ts.

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 confirm read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that data is derived from analytics engine, no PII, and cached (5min-1h). This goes beyond annotations.

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

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

Two paragraphs, front-loaded with clear purpose. Every sentence adds value. No redundant or vague language.

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 simple tool (1 optional param, no output schema), description fully covers purpose, usage, behavior, return values (tools, packs, volume), and caching. Complete.

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

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

Schema covers 100% with enum and description. Description adds strategic insight: short windows show hot trends, long windows show steady demand, enhancing parameter understanding.

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

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

Clearly states the tool returns trending tools, packs, and call volume aggregated from other AI agents' calls. Distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools by focusing on popularity data.

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

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

Explicitly lists three distinct use cases (discovery, canonical choice confirmation, alignment checking) and advises on window selection. Could mention when not to use but overall 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 annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description details behavioral traits: it explains the two operating modes, the checks performed (monotonicity, partition), the fill check using live CLOB depth, and the conditions under which no trade is suggested. It also mentions that calling with no arguments fails. No contradictions with annotations detected.

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

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

The description is relatively verbose but well-structured with clear sections and logical flow. Every sentence contributes meaningful information for a complex tool. While not extremely concise, the length is justified by the tool's sophistication.

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 (two modes, multiple checks, fill analysis) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the response structure, the fill check logic, and the conditions for no trade, fully equipping an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant context: it explains the purpose of each parameter (`event` for single-event mode, `topic` for cross-event mode), provides example values, and clarifies when each is appropriate. This goes well beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: finding arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes two modes (event and topic) with specific examples, differentiating it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_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 provides explicit guidance on when to use `event` (for a specific market) vs `topic` (for cross-event scanning), with example inputs. It also explains conditions like Jaccard similarity threshold and partition filter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other related tools, though the context from sibling names helps.

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, idlempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial context: caching for 1 hour, return of diagnostics, 24h-move warning, edge calculation details (after slippage), and how knobs affect output. 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 extremely long and verbose. It is well-organized with segmented explanations of each model family, but contains redundant or overly detailed explanations that could be condensed. The front-loading is effective, but the length detracts from 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, 3 output segments, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains output structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, diagnostics), all fields in each opportunity, caching, tradeable-edge knobs, and limitations (Fed data unreliability). The agent can fully understand usage and outcomes.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (9 parameters documented). The description adds value by explaining the overarching context of the knobs, such as how 'min_kelly' never filters partition arbs due to design. It provides narrative beyond the schema's individual descriptions, justifying a score above baseline.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'scan top Polymarket markets' and the resource 'opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price'. It also specifies the intended use case 'what should I bet on today'. The tool is distinct from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by combining multiple model families.

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 the tool, such as 'Built for 'what should I bet on today' and mentions caching behavior. It explains the three segments and tradeable-edge knobs. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or provide '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?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations. It explains that data is built from daily snapshots, details the response structure (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates), and discloses limits (60-day TTL, decay from daily closes not intraday). No contradiction with the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint 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 each sentence contributes value. It front-loads the purpose and then explains the response format and limits. Could be slightly more concise, but structure is logical and information-dense.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the response structure (tracked with time-series, trend, decay; expired with lifespan_days; snapshot_dates). It also covers limitations like TTL and data start time. The description is complete given the tool's 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description rephrases the days and window parameters (e.g., 'lookback, default 14, max 30' and 'snapshot family, default 1wk') but does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. The response details are explained but not tied to parameter choices.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' answering 'how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?'. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical persistence rather than current edges.

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

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

The description provides context on when to use the tool by contrasting a fresh wide edge with a 3-week-old wide edge, implying the importance of persistence. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide. Siblings like polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage suggest alternatives but are not named.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds extensive behavioral context: it walks the order book ladder, returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict), and for basket mode includes per-leg fill detail, thin_legs[], forced_directional_risk, and warns about partial fill risks. This goes well beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is thorough but somewhat lengthy. It uses bold and caps for emphasis and clearly separates single-market and basket modes. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise. For the complexity, this is acceptable.

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 comprehensively lists all return fields for both modes. It includes warnings about partial fills and forced directional risk. It sets defaults and clamp ranges. The description leaves no ambiguity about tool behavior and return values.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the tool description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the two modes (market vs event), side defaults (auto for basket), interpretation of size_usd (spend vs target proceeds for single-market, settlement notional for basket), and the clamp range 10–1,000,000. Parameter descriptions in schema are concise but the tool description enriches them with usage context.

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: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, explaining inputs and outputs for each. It also differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by specifying when to use this tool.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains why: theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable, and partial basket fills convert an arb into an unhedged directional position. This 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?

The description extensively details behavior beyond the annotations: two modes, safety fields (compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment), skipped cross types, and response structure. Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so no contradiction exists.

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, every sentence serves a purpose: core function, two modes, safety interpretation, and realistic expectations. Information is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the structure is logical for the complexity level.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing response fields (leg-by-leg prices, matched spreads, safety fields, counters) and edge cases (compatibility_warning conditions, temporal alignment). It is comprehensive for a tool with 3 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% with parameter descriptions, but the description adds significant value by explaining the topic macro list, explicit parameter overrides, and provides concrete examples. 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 explicitly states the tool computes cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket, with two distinct modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage which are single-venue focused.

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 (comparing same-event prices across venues) and when not (when bet shapes are non-equivalent, triggering compatibility_warning). It does not, however, explicitly name sibling alternatives for comparison.

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, and no destructiveness. The description adds value by explaining scoping to an identifier and the pairing with remember/forget. No contradictions.

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

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

Three sentences, zero waste. The most critical information is front-loaded and every sentence serves a distinct purpose (purpose, usage, scoping).

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

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

Given the low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its relationship to other tools, making it complete.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage and the description explains the key parameter's meaning and the behavior when omitted (list all keys), adding value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a value saved via remember or lists all keys when the key argument is omitted, using specific verbs and identifying the resource (memory). It effectively distinguishes from siblings remember and forget by name.

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

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

The description explicitly says when to use the tool ('look up context the agent stored earlier') and pairs it with remember and forget. It mentions scoping but does not explicitly state when not to use it, though the context is clear.

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

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

The description discloses that setting mark_read:true flags events as read, which is a state-modifying operation. This contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation (true), creating an annotation contradiction. The description does not clarify this discrepancy or explain read semantics beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is concise, with five well-structured sentences that front-load the main purpose and cover all key aspects without redundancy. 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?

The description covers parameters and output fields adequately for a read operation. However, since there is no output schema, it could mention potential error cases or pagination. Still, it provides enough information for typical use.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds contextual value: it gives an example filter type ('sec_8k'), specifies ISO timestamp format for 'since', explains the effect of 'mark_read' and 'unread_only', and notes the default and maximum for 'limit'. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool pulls fired events from a subscription feed and returns recent alerts. It specifies the output fields (source, citation_uri, raw event payload) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on retrieval of fired events, while siblings like list_subscriptions handle different aspects.

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

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

The description mentions that polling works fine and provides an alternative HTTP endpoint for scripts and dashboards, guiding usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it directly to other sibling tools for similar tasks.

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

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: explains data sources (SEC, GDELT/GNews fallback, USPTO), fallback logic, rate-limiting behavior, and soft-failure for USPTO API sunset.

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 front-loaded with examples but somewhat verbose. Structure is clear with logical flow from purpose to usage to output format. Minor improvement possible by trimming redundant clauses.

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

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

Comprehensive coverage: explains multi-source fan-out, fallback behavior, parameter details, and output structure (changes[], total_changes, URIs). No output schema so description fills gap well.

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 explaining `since` formats (ISO date, relative shorthand) and `value` accepts ticker or CIK. Slight redundancy with schema but helpful.

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 change feed for companies (SEC filings, news, patents) within a time window, and distinguishes from sibling tool entity_profile by specifying when to use each.

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

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

Explicitly gives use cases ('What's new with X') and an alternative tool (entity_profile). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the alternative is sufficiently 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?

Adds context beyond annotations: persistence scoping by identifier, 24-hour retention for anonymous sessions, and authenticated users get persistent memory. Annotations already convey mutation and idempotency.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted 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?

Covers usage, persistence, scoping, and siblings. For a simple store operation with 2 params and no output schema, it fully informs the 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 both parameters with descriptions. Description adds that the key-value pair is scoped by the agent's identifier, 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?

The description clearly states 'Save data' and specifies the resource as key-value memory. It distinguishes from siblings like recall and forget by emphasizing storage.

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 guidance on when to use ('discover something worth carrying forward') and mentions pairing with recall and forget. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable details: internal cascading through multiple endpoints (replacing 2-3 manual lookups), auto-disambiguation for companies, and citation URIs in the response. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with common user queries ('What's the ticker for…'). Every sentence provides essential information: purpose, usage priority, supported types, and return details. No redundancy or filler.

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, the description is complete. It explains the input parameters, the return values per type, and the internal cascading behavior. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by detailing the structure of the result. The annotations further support safe usage.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and parameters are fully described. The description enriches the schema by providing concrete examples (ticker 'AAPL', CIK '0000320193', drug names 'ozempic', 'metformin') and explaining what each type returns (e.g., ticker + CIK + company name + URI for company). This adds meaning beyond the bare 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 resolves user-spoken names to canonical IDs. It uses specific verbs like 'resolve' and 'look up' and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It covers the two supported entity types thoroughly.

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 directive to use this tool first when you have a name and need an ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The context of being a primary lookup is well established.

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, openWorldHint, and nondestructive. The description adds behavioral context: 'Probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces which is most/least recognized' and return fields ('score, confidence, signal density per entity'), 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?

The description is a single, concise paragraph (3 sentences) that front-loads the core purpose, then adds probe and return details. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return ('ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity'). Inputs are well-described in schema. Minor omissions like pagination or error handling don't significantly hurt completeness for this tool.

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

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

Schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds unique context: 'First entry treated as the subject for narrative; rest are competitors.' This clarifies the parameter's semantic role beyond the schema description. Other parameters are sufficiently described in 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 uses a specific verb 'Compare' and clear resource 'AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It is distinct from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (general comparison), making its purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description explicitly frames its use case: 'competitive AI-marketing audits' with an example question. It implies when to use (side-by-side comparison) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, though the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds crucial behavioral context: fans out to external services, partial failures degrade gracefully with sources_failed, and bundlephobia first measurement can take 5-30s. 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 a single dense paragraph but front-loaded with purpose. It contains all necessary details, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points for return fields) could improve readability. Still concise 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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternatives), partial failure behavior, ecosystem scope, and delay. Annotations cover safety traits, making this complete for agent decision-making.

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 parameters are already explained. The description does not add semantic value beyond what the schema provides; it merely references package name and version implicitly.

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: a composite check for adding an npm package, covering safety, popularity, and size via deps.dev and bundlephobia. It specifies the output fields and distinguishes from any sibling tool by being a one-call composite for npm.

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: when an agent asks about package safety, popularity, size, or cost. Also states when not to use: only NPM ecosystem in v1; other ecosystems should use deps.dev:version directly.

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 safe read-only, idempotent operation. Description adds specifics: BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine over 500-char windows, 200K char cap with truncation flag.

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 4 sentences, front-loaded with core concept. Includes technical details efficiently without extra fluff. Well-organized.

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 explains return values (passages with offsets and scores) and truncation behavior. Covers all essential aspects for usage.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so description adds minimal value beyond schema. Provides example query for 'query' parameter but restates schema info.

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

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

The description clearly states 'semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' and explains it returns top-N passages with offsets and scores. It distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded by pairing recommendation.

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 when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and suggests pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded. Does not list negative cases but context is clear.

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

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

Annotations provide basic hints (not read-only, open world, idempotent, not destructive). Description adds context like requiring OAuth account, delivery channel behaviors, and caps. No contradiction, but idempotency hint is not fully explained.

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 single paragraph with front-loaded main action and return value. While a bit dense, it avoids unnecessary words. Could benefit from bullet points for clarity but remains concise.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (nested params, multiple types, delivery channels) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameters, prerequisites, constraints, and return value ('new 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds substantial value beyond the schema: detailed examples for each event type, explanation of nested params, delivery channel specifics (webhook signing, SMS verification).

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 creates a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream and returns a subscription id. Distinguishes from siblings like 'unsubscribe' and 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on creation.

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 prerequisites (Pipeworx OAuth account, not anonymous/BYO), supported event types with examples, delivery channels with constraints (phone verification, 10/day SMS cap), and provides when to use details.

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 mark as readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds that it draws from a live catalog of thousands of tools and returns exact tool+argument shapes, which is 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?

The description is fairly long but every sentence adds value. It front-loads example queries, then explains output and usage. Could be slightly more compact, but remains 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 sufficiently explains the output format (category-bucketed questions with tool arguments). It covers parameter semantics, usage context, and the tool's role. No gaps remain for this simple tool.

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

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

Schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter. Description adds the exact allowable topic values (finance, pharma, etc.) and explains the behavioral difference between omitting and passing a topic. This significantly enhances parameter understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns category-bucketed example questions, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('example questions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it as the onboarding entry point.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools.' Also explains optional topic parameter usage. However, does not explicitly state when not to use it, missing exclusion criteria.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the row is deactivated (not deleted) so historical events stay available, which is valuable 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 with no wasted words. Action is front-loaded and all sentences add 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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and good annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains deactivation vs deletion, which is important 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% and the one parameter 'id' is documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states 'Cancel a subscription by id' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions.

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 says 'Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions,' providing clear when-to-use context without explicit alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it details the return format (verdict, structured form, actual value with citation, percent delta) and explains that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, enhancing efficiency understanding.

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 slightly verbose, with repetition of trigger phrases. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but some sentences could be merged or removed without loss of clarity.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description fully explains return values (verdict, structured form, actual value, citation, delta) and sources. It also covers domain, supported entities, and efficiency, making the tool's behavior entirely predictable.

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

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

The single parameter 'claim' is well described in the schema. The description adds domain-specific context (company-financial claims, SEC EDGAR + XBRL) that clarifies expected inputs beyond the schema's generic description.

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

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

The description uses specific verbs ('validate', 'verify', 'fact-check') and clearly identifies the resource ('natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on company-financial claims and explicitly listing input triggers and expected outputs.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also notes the domain limitation (company-financial claims). While it doesn't mention when not to use it, the specificity is sufficient due to the narrow scope.

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