Itis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description's role is reduced. The description adds value by detailing the default free model, the optional paid Anthropic model with key handling, and the exact return format (score, confidence, signals, raw_response). 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 six sentences with no redundant language. It front-loads the core action and output format, then efficiently covers optional details like model selection and API key. Every sentence contributes to clarity.

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

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

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return values per model and a combined view. It covers optional parameters and their purposes. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or timeout behavior, which would make it more complete for a probing 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description enriches each parameter: entity is explained as 'the thing to ask about', models list supported values, _apiKey notes it is passed directly to Anthropic, and context is for disambiguation. This adds practical guidance 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 uses a specific verb ('probe') and defines the resource (LLMs for a brand/topic) with the output format (score 0-100 per model). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by mentioning unique use cases like AI-marketing audits and pre-launch checks, which are not covered by other tools such as scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring') and provides context on model selection and API key handling. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent. The description adds that it routes to one of 3,596 tools, fills arguments, and returns structured answers with stable citation URIs, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured, front-loaded with the key usage guideline, and includes examples. Though somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value and earns its place.

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

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

Given the tool's meta-nature and simple parameter, the description thoroughly covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns (structured answers with citations). No output schema, but the description adequately addresses return characteristics.

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

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

The schema has 6 aliased parameters for 'question', all described as natural language input. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with 100% schema coverage and a simple parameter, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description explicitly states the tool routes questions to thousands of tools for authoritative structured data, with specific examples (SEC filings, FDA data, etc.). It clearly distinguishes itself from web search, making the purpose unmistakable.

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

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

The description begins with 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and provides explicit guidance on when to use (factual questions about real-world entities, events, numbers) with example queries. It effectively communicates preference over alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds detailed behavioral context: output format on success (answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason:null), explicit refusal reasons (not_in_source, no_tool_match, tool_error, data_truncated, llm_error), and mentions the cost of one extra LLM call. 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 front-loaded with the key purpose and usage guidelines. It includes necessary details about output format and refusal reasons. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity, but it earns its length with valuable information.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (routing across many sources, extraction, multiple refusal modes) and the lack of an output schema, the description fully covers the behavior, return values, and error conditions. It explains when it refuses and why, making the tool's behavior predictable for an AI agent.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each alias parameter. The description adds minimal parametric insight beyond stating the question is used for routing ('Same routing as ask_pipeworx'), which is already implied. No new semantics about parameter constraints or formatting are provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly defines the tool as a 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads', explaining that it routes through the same system as ask_pipeworx but extracts answers only from tool results. It distinguishes from its sibling ask_pipeworx by noting the extra LLM call and the use case for critical answers that must not invent facts.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements).' Also advises when not to use: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' Provides clear context for decision-making.

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

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds extensive behavioral context: resolver logic, classifier fan-out, response shapes, safety short-circuits (low_confidence_match, market_closed_or_inactive), parent event extraction, news fallback mechanisms, and wide-spread warnings. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and well-organized into sections (classifiers, fan-out examples, response shapes, safety). It is slightly verbose (e.g., listing all classifiers) but each section adds value. Structure is logical and easy to scan.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return fields (result.market, result.analysis, result.evidence), resolver contract (market_match_confidence, alternatives), parent event extractor, news error handling, and safety blocking. Covers all aspects needed for correct agent invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: market parameter accepts slug, URL, or question text; depth has 'quick' vs 'thorough' with default; include_raw explains file size trade-offs. This extra guidance improves utility.

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 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call', specifying the verb (research), resource (Polymarket bet via Pipeworx), and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on comprehensive research.

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

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

The description provides explicit use cases: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z"'. It also includes safety mechanisms (low-confidence matches, closed markets) that implicitly indicate when not to use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds rich behavioral context: data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and return of citation URIs. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Description is front-loaded with common query patterns, then details. It is fairly long but every sentence adds value. Minor room for tightening, but effective structure and 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 (two entity types, multiple data sources, no output schema), the description covers what returns (paired data + citation URIs), sorting behavior, and data sources. An agent has sufficient information 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% but description adds significant meaning: specifies tickers/CIKs vs drug names, reiterates min/max items, and explains how type determines data pulled (revenue, net income, etc. vs adverse events, approvals, trials). This goes well 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 uses specific verbs ('Compare', 'side-by-side comparison') and resources ('2–5 companies or drugs') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like entity_profile (single-entity) and validate_claim (claim validation). It also specifies what data is pulled for each type.

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 example queries ('Compare X and Y', 'rank these companies') and a strong directive to prefer this tool over sequential single-pack lookups. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the usage context is very 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, destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining the return format: top-N tools with full input schemas and curated examples, ready to call directly. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is well-structured, front-loading the purpose, then usage, then return format. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Still efficient.

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

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

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned: top-N tools with names, descriptions, and full schemas. It also covers many domains and includes usage tips. Complete for 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that query accepts natural language, lists aliases, and provides examples. This enhances the schema's information.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool finds tools by describing the data or task, and distinguishes it from siblings by advising to call it first to see the option set. It lists many specific domains, making the purpose concrete.

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 you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for...' and 'Call this FIRST... to see the option set'. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the guidance is clear and practical.

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 safe read operations. The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool fans out across multiple sources, details the return fields (cik, filings with URIs, fundamentals sorted by period end, patents soft-fail, news fallback, LEI), and mentions the ONE parallel call behavior.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with examples and use cases, then provides detailed behavioral and return information. While it is relatively long, each sentence serves a purpose and the structure is logical. Slightly more conciseness could improve it, but it remains efficient.

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

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

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return content: sources (SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF), specific fields (cik, company_name, filings with URIs, fundamentals sorted, patents soft-fail, news fallback, LEI). This is complete for an agent to understand what the tool provides.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds further context: ticker or zero-padded CIK, names not supported, and reference to resolve_entity. This reinforces the schema but does not add entirely new information.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It provides concrete examples like 'Tell me about X' and 'company profile for Microsoft,' and distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_entity.

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

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

Explicit guidance is given: 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' Also notes that names are not supported and recommends using resolve_entity first, providing clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so description doesn't add much beyond purpose and pairing context. No contradictions, but doesn't elaborate on behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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

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

Two concise sentences with front-loaded verb and resource. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage context, and pairing with related tools.

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 single-parameter tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and tool relationships completely. No missing information given the tool's simplicity.

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 parameter description ('Memory key to delete'). The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete a previously stored memory by key') and the resource ('memory by key'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'remember' and 'recall' which store and retrieve respectively.

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

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data'. Also mentions pairing with 'remember' and 'recall', but lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it fetches the page, extracts content, and emits markdown, which is useful but not beyond what annotations imply.

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

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

The description is concise: front-loaded with purpose, then details, then use cases. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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

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

Given 2 parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description completes the picture by explaining the output format and use cases, making it fully self-contained.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds an example for 'url' and repeats the default/max for 'max_links', providing marginal added value.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from related sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence by giving concrete use cases (getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitors).

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

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

The description explicitly lists three useful scenarios, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling tools are different enough that context is implied.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds 'Keyless', but lacks other behavioral details like data freshness or result format.

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?

One concise sentence with examples and key information, 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 read tool with good annotations, the description is adequate: states source, keyless, returns all languages. No output schema, but not needed for clarity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter. Description provides an example of output but no extra meaning for the parameter beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves vernacular (common) names for a TSN from ITIS, with examples. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_hierarchy.

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

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

It advises to pass a TSN from search_taxa, implying a prerequisite, but lacks when-not or alternative tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds context about the scope (kingdom to children), return fields, and source (ITIS), enhancing transparency 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: first sentence covers purpose and scope, second details return fields and source note. 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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, clear annotations), the description covers input, output, source, and usage hint. No output schema, but return fields are listed.

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 a description for the single parameter tsn. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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 the tool walks the full taxonomic hierarchy from ITIS for a given TSN, returning each rank with tsn, name, rank, and parent_tsn. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_taxa and get_common_names.

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 notes to pass a TSN from search_taxa and mentions it's keyless, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it is caller-specific and lists active subscriptions by default, which is useful behavioral context.

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

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

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose, then details, then usage. No superfluous text.

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

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

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with one optional boolean parameter. The description does not elaborate on the parameter, but the schema already describes it sufficiently. No additional value added by description beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions and specifies the return fields (id, type, params, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like subscribe and unsubscribe.

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

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' It does not give when-not-to-use instructions, but the context is clear.

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

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

The description discloses rate-limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), non-quota usage ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and internal impact ('team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap'). These details go well beyond the provided annotations, which are all false.

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 is well-organized: purpose first, then usage scenarios, then behavioral details. It could be slightly improved with bullet points for readability, but every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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

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

The description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, limitations, and cost. No output schema exists, so no need to describe returns. The tool's complexity is low, and the description leaves no gaps 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% so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying how to contextualize issues (e.g., 'Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs') and gives concrete guidelines for the message field ('Be specific', '1-2 sentences typical'). This raises it 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 it's for sending feedback to the Pipeworx team, enumerating specific types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) that cover the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as the only feedback mechanism.

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 each feedback type (e.g., 'Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug)') and provides explicit guidance on what not to do ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This is comprehensive and actionable.

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. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data source (CF analytics-engine), privacy (no PII), and caching (5min-1h). No contradictions.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core value proposition, followed by use cases and technical notes. Every sentence earns its place; 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 lacking an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (top tools, top packs, total call volume) and adds caching details. For a simple, read-only tool, this is 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 the description adds semantic guidance: explains the effect of shorter vs. longer windows and notes the default (24h). This goes beyond the schema's enum list.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over recent windows. It specifies three concrete use cases, distinguishing it from siblings like discover_tools or ask_pipeworx.

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

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

Explicitly lists three high-value use cases (discovering hot data, confirming canonical choices, aligning use cases). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the context is clear enough for appropriate selection.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds significant behavioral context, including the algorithm (monotonicity checks, partition_check), semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity), and partition filter. It also notes that calls with no args 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?

The description is detailed but well-structured, front-loading the requirement and key modes. It uses clear sections and bullet points for response structure. While lengthy, every sentence adds necessary detail.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure (opportunities array, partition_check) and constraints (semantic anchor, partition filter). It covers both modes adequately.

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

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

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds operational meaning: for `event` it explains walking child markets and checking ordering, for `topic` it explains cross-event scanning and flattening markets. This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket using monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes between event mode and topic mode with specific examples, making it clear what the tool does and how it differs from its two modes.

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

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

The description explicitly requires one of `event` or `topic`, and recommends event for specific markets and topic for cross-event scanning. It provides examples of when to use each mode, although it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds extensive behavioral details: caching strategy (1h KV-level), model families, response segmentation, diagnostics for empty segments, and edge calculation specifics. 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 lengthy but well-structured: purpose, model families, response layout, knobs, caching. Each sentence adds useful information, though it 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?

No output schema, so description fully explains return structure (by_segment, fed_candidates, diagnostics) and edge fields. With 9 parameters at 100% schema coverage, the description is complete and covers all needed details.

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 all parameters described. The description adds value by explaining parameter interplay (e.g., min_kelly vs min_partition_leg_kelly, slippage subtraction) and usage context for tradeable-edge knobs.

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 scans Polymarket markets for opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price. It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on Pipeworx-driven 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 clear context for when to use the tool (discovering opportunities) and includes tradeable-edge knobs (min_liquidity, max_spread_pp) that guide usage. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but implicitly differentiates from sibling tools.

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

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

The description discloses extensive behavioral traits beyond annotations, including compatibility warnings, temporal alignment, skipped cross-type/subtype counters, and warnings that many pre-mapped topics may not yield tradable spreads. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose and modes. While lengthy, every sentence adds value. Minor room for tightening but appropriate for the complexity.

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

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

The description is complete given the complexity and absence of output schema. It details the response structure (leg-by-leg prices, spreads, safety fields) and provides sufficient context for an agent to understand expected outputs.

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?

Given 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning by explaining the two modes, how overrides work, and providing detailed examples. It enriches the schema beyond the basic descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool computes the spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question, with specific verb 'Cross-venue spread' and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by emphasizing cross-venue comparison and two operational modes.

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

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

The description explains two modes and the context of use (comparing prices across venues), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, it provides enough context for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by explaining scoping (anonymous IP, key hash, account ID) and pairing context, which is not in annotations.

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

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

Two sentences front-loaded with main action. 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?

No output schema exists, but description implies return value or list of keys. Slightly lacking explicit return format, but sufficient for agent use given simplicity.

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% of parameters with description for 'key'. Description adds semantics by explaining that omitting key lists all keys, supplementing schema.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a value saved via remember or lists all keys if omitted. Distinguishes from siblings remember (save) and forget (delete) through explicit pairing.

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 (look up stored context) and when to omit key (list all). Notes scoping to identifier and pairing with remember/forget.

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

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

Annotations declare the tool read-only, open-world, and idempotent. The description adds context about the 'mark_read' parameter's side effect of flagging events as read, which updates state. 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?

Four concise sentences front-loaded with the main purpose. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds meaningful 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?

No output schema, but the description explains return fields (source, citation_uri, payload) and covers filtering, marking read, and polling. Sufficient for 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving examples for 'type' (e.g., 'sec_8k'), explaining 'since' as ISO timestamp, and clarifying 'mark_read' behavior.

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 your subscription feed' and returns recent alerts with specific fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_subscriptions' and 'search_within' by focusing on recent events from the feed.

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 polling is fine and provides an alternative URL for scripts/dashboards, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare against siblings like 'recent_changes'.

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, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical context: fan-out to multiple APIs, fallback logic, source-specific soft-failure conditions (PatentsView sunset), and return structure, 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 relatively long but well-structured with front-loaded examples and clear separation of concerns. Every sentence adds necessary information, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (multiple sources, fallback, soft-failure), the description fully explains behavior, return structure, and edge cases. Annotations cover safety, and no output schema is needed since return values are described inline.

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 substantial value by explaining supported formats for 'since' (ISO date or relative shorthand with examples), typical usage suggestion, and dual interpretation of 'value' (ticker or CIK).

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 explicitly states the tool returns a change feed for a company within a configurable window, with examples of user queries. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'entity_profile' by specifying when to use that alternative.

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 concrete example queries and explicitly states when to use 'entity_profile' instead. Also details fallback behavior between GDELT and GNews, and acknowledges USPTO limitations, offering clear guidance for the 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?

Beyond annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavior: scoping by identifier, persistence differences for authenticated vs anonymous users (24 hours), and the key-value store nature. 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 compact yet comprehensive, using bullet-like structure effectively. Every sentence adds value: purpose, when-to-use, scoping, persistence, and sibling pairing. No redundancy.

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

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

Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, persistence, and sibling relationships. It could explicitly mention overwrite behavior for duplicate keys, but the idempotent hint partially covers that. Overall very 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 schema already covers both parameters with examples (100% coverage). The description enriches understanding by providing real-world use cases and the pairing with recall/forget, but doesn't add strictly new param-level details beyond 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: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later.' It specifies the verb (Save), the resource (data), and the scope (across conversations/sessions). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like recall and forget through explicit pairing.

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 concrete guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward' with examples. It implicitly contrasts with recall and forget, but lacks explicit exclusion scenarios (e.g., when not to use it).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable lookup. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it reveals that the tool cascades through multiple internal endpoints ('Each call cascades through several lookup endpoints internally — using resolve_entity replaces 2-3 manual lookups.') and details the exact return data for each type, including citation URIs. This helps the agent understand the tool's behavior and output format.

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

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

The description is well-structured with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It then breaks down supported types with bullet-like clarity. At about 100 words, every sentence contributes meaning. Minor length could be trimmed (e.g., the repeated 'pipeworx://' citations), but overall it's concise and scannable for an agent.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns for each type: for 'company' it lists ticker, 10-digit CIK, company_name, and citation URI; for 'drug' it lists RxCUI, ingredient, brand, and citation URI. It also explains input acceptance (ticker, CIK, name for company; brand/generic for drug) and mentions auto-disambiguation. Given the tool's complexity and no output schema, this is a complete and informative 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning: for the 'type' parameter, it explains what each enum value resolves to (e.g., 'company' returns ticker + CIK + company_name + citation URI). For 'value', it provides specific examples and notes auto-disambiguation for company input. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions, giving the agent practical guidance on input formatting.

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: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifier other tools require as input.' It specifies supported types (company, drug) and what each returns (ticker, CIK, RxCUI, etc.). It also positions the tool as a first step: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' This differentiates it from siblings like entity_profile or compare_entities, which presumably operate on already-resolved IDs.

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 ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.') and lists the entity types it supports. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools, but the 'use first' guidance strongly implies context. The examples of natural language queries ('What's the ticker for…') further clarify the intended use case.

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 context beyond annotations by detailing the internal probe using ai_visibility_check, ranking, and return format (score, confidence, signal density). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description complements without contradicting.

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

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

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. No redundancy or wasted words.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It also covers entity constraints and parameter details, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: explains the role of the first entity as the 'subject' and the others as competitors, provides context for models and context parameters, and adds entity count constraints (2-8) not in the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities, using a specific verb 'compare' and resource 'AI visibility'. It distinguishes from siblings like ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (different comparison type).

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 use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and implies when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., single entity check via ai_visibility_check). However, it does not explicitly list when to avoid or exclude other tools.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description adds critical behavioral details: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed lists timeouts. This context is essential for correct usage.

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

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

The description is dense and comprehensive, front-loading the purpose and then detailing return structure, limitations, and failure modes. While thorough, it could be slightly more concise by breaking into sections, but every sentence is informative.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully describes the return structure (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and covers limitations (NPM only, partial failures). Given only 2 simple parameters, this is complete and actionable.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds value by noting that scoped packages (e.g. '@types/node') are accepted and that version defaults to latest when omitted. These are not in the schema descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: a composite check for npm packages covering license, advisories, version history, bundle size, and tree-shaking. It uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('dependency'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by being a unified NPM-only check.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me".' Also clarifies NPM-only scope and points to alternative for other ecosystems ('PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under 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 cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds context of being authoritative, keyless, and what fields are returned, which adds value beyond annotations.

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

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds distinct information. 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 simple one-parameter schema with full coverage and annotations, the description completely explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the output. No output schema needed as return fields are listed.

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% for the single parameter. The example 'Puma concolor' and 'scientific name to search' adds no new meaning beyond the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool searches ITIS by scientific name and resolves to TSNs, returning specific fields. It also differentiates from siblings by mentioning using the tsn with get_hierarchy or get_common_names.

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 notes the tool is keyless and suggests follow-up actions with the tsn. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but implies the primary use case for taxonomic search and resolution.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals detailed behavior: returns top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores, uses BGE-base-en embeddings with cosine similarity over 500-char overlapping windows, has a 200K char cap with truncation flag. This significantly enhances transparency.

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

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

The description is a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, immediately followed by usage guidance and technical details. Every sentence contributes essential information without redundancy.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains return values (passages with offsets and similarity scores) and covers truncation behavior and paired sibling tool. This provides sufficient context for an agent to understand inputs and outputs.

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 value by explaining the query parameter with natural-language examples and clarifying the text parameter as the previously fetched document. This goes beyond a simple restatement.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool performs semantic search inside a fetched record, with specific examples (SEC 10-K, article) and contrasts with the sibling tool ask_pipeworx_grounded. It explicitly identifies the verb 'search within' and the resource 'fetched record', making the purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description advises using this tool when the record is too large for the prompt, saving context by returning only relevant passages. It also pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounded queries. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the guidance is clear and context-specific.

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 include idempotentHint=true, but the description implies each call creates a new subscription (returns a new subscription id), which suggests non-idempotent behavior. This contradiction and lack of explanation for the idempotency claim significantly reduce transparency. The description does add useful context about authentication and delivery constraints.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains three sentences that each provide essential information. It is slightly long but not wasteful; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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

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

Given the complexity (3 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, type specifics, filter format, return value (subscription id), delivery options with constraints, and requirements. It lacks details on error handling or additional response fields, but is fairly complete for a creation 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds substantial value beyond the schema by explaining the sec_8k type and filter format with examples, detailing delivery channels (including constraints like verified phone and SMS cap), and clarifying default behaviors for items and feed always-on.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream.' It provides concrete examples for the sec_8k type and items filter, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe.

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

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

The description gives clear context including the type restriction ('v1 supports type:"sec_8k"'), required account type ('Pipeworx OAuth account'), and delivery channels. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for different purposes.

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 mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds valuable context: ownership checks and soft-delete behavior, which are beyond the annotations.

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

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

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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

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

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description fully explains behavior, constraints, and side effects, making it complete for agent use.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the 'id' parameter as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like subscribe and list_subscriptions by emphasizing ownership and deactivation.

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 mentions ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and explains the deactivation behavior vs deletion, guiding when to use this tool and how historical data remains accessible via recent_alerts.

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool returns a verdict (confirmed/refuted/etc.), extracted structured form, actual value with citation, and percent delta. It also reveals the underlying data sources (SEC EDGAR + XBRL). No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is relatively long but well-structured, front-loading the purpose with examples. Every sentence provides useful information, though some details about version and replacements could be condensed. Overall, it is efficient and informative.

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

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

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: it explains the input type, the output verdicts, the data source, and the tool's efficiency advantage. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and 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?

The single parameter 'claim' has 100% schema description coverage. The description enriches this by providing natural-language examples and explaining that the tool handles phrases like 'Is it true that…'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic description.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as natural-language claim verification, with specific examples like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls and is specialized for company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR + XBRL.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also implies limitations by specifying the domain (company-financial claims), but does not explicitly say when not to use it. The guidance is clear enough for selecting the tool.

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