Jpl Ssd

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive hint. The description adds behavioral context: probing multiple LLMs, scoring, return format (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response + combined view), and cost implication for Anthropic. 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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, then explains options and output. 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description adequately explains functionality, options, and output structure. It covers what the agent needs to know to decide whether to use the tool and how to invoke it.

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 minor context (default model, key requirement for Anthropic) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema's own 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 verb (probe), resource (LLMs), and outcome (visibility score 0-100 per model). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for AI-marketing audits, brand checks, and competitive monitoring, making it easy to differentiate from similar tools like 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 provides clear context on when to use (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains the default model vs. optional Anthropic with key. It lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives but offers sufficient guidance for typical use cases.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: the tool routes questions to 3,744 tools across 884 sources, fills arguments automatically, and returns results with stable citation URIs (pipeworx://). This goes beyond the annotation metadata, though it does not discuss potential limitations like rate limits or response delays.

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, moderately long paragraph that front-loads the key usage guidance ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH') and then lists domains and examples. While efficient, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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—orchestrating thousands of tools to answer varied factual queries—the description is thorough. It explains the tool's role, input format, output nature (structured answer with citations), and covers many potential use cases. No output schema is provided, but the description compensates by describing the return type and stability of citations.

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 six parameters clearly described as aliases for the natural-language question. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not exceeding it.

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: answering factual questions about current or historical data from structured sources with citations. It explicitly positions itself as preferable to web search and lists numerous domains, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'deep_research' and 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' by emphasizing its orchestration of many 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 strong guidance on when to use the tool ('prefer over web search' and specific query types like 'what is', 'look up', 'find') with concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to use 'deep_research' or 'bet_research' instead, which would elevate the score further.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the refusal reasons, return format ({answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason:null} and specific refusal reasons), and the extra LLM call cost. No contradiction.

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

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

The description is relatively long but front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence provides value, though it could be slightly more concise. Structure is clear with examples of refusal reasons.

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 among 3,744 tools across 884 sources) and lack of output schema, the description is comprehensive. It explains the process, return format, refusal reasons, and cost trade-off, leaving no gaps for the agent to understand when and how to use it.

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. It mentions 'Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases' but that is already in the schema. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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 is a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx by being grounded. It specifies the verb 'EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains', providing a specific resource and scope.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts'. Also provides exclusion: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups' and mentions the extra LLM call cost.

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 covers behavioral details beyond annotations: how the tool resolves markets, classifies bets, fans out to data sources, handles low-confidence and closed markets, provides market match confidence, cancellation rules, and response shapes. Complements annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) without contradiction.

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

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

The description is long but well-structured with clear sections (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, RESPONSE SHAPES, etc.), front-loading the core purpose. While dense, every section provides necessary detail for an AI 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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains expected outputs (market, analysis, evidence, resolver contract, parent event, news fields) and edge cases (low confidence, closed markets, wide spreads, cancellation rules). 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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds value by elaborating on input formats (slug, URL, question), depth options (quick vs thorough), and include_raw's default behavior and size impact.

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 researches a Polymarket bet by pulling Pipeworx data, with specific input types and output summaries. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on a single bet 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?

Explicit use cases are given ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', 'is there edge in Z'). Additionally, it describes when the tool may not be reliable (low confidence matches, closed markets), providing usage restrictions. However, it does not directly compare to 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=false, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds that it is keyless (no authentication required), but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like rate limits or pagination behavior. This is adequate but not extensive.

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 sentence that front-loads the source and purpose, then specifies output fields and keyless nature. No unnecessary words.

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

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

The description covers the tool's core mission, data source, and authentication requirements. It does not mention the default limit or that max_distance accepts lunar distances, but these are present in the schema. For a simple list tool with good schema and annotations, the description is nearly 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-described in the input schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning or usage examples beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists near-Earth close approaches from NASA/JPL CNEOS, specifying output fields (miss distance, velocity, magnitude) and that it's keyless. It distinguishes itself from siblings like impact_risk by focusing on general close approaches rather than impact risk assessment.

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 the tool is used for listing close approaches within a date range, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like impact_risk or search_within. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. Description adds behavioral details: for company pulls latest 10-K data from SEC EDGAR/XBRL with correct off-calendar fiscal years; for drug pulls FAERS, FDA approval counts, trial counts. Results sorted by primary metric.

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

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

Well-structured with front-loaded example queries, then technical details. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Could be tightened without losing clarity.

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

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

No output schema, but description states returns paired data with pipeworx:// citation URIs per entity. Explains what data is pulled for each type and that it replaces many sequential lookups. Fully adequate for selecting and invoking 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 coverage 100%. Description expands: explains type enum with business context (company pulls financial data, drug pulls regulatory data), values parameter with examples and constraints (2–5 tickers or drug names). Also notes results sorted by primary metric.

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 it performs side-by-side comparison of 2–5 companies or drugs, with example queries like 'X vs Y' and 'rank these companies'. Clearly distinguishes from sequential single-pack 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 directive: 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities.' Also clarifies when to use company vs drug type and that it replaces 8–15 sequential lookups.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds valuable behavioral details: returns verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citations, gaps array for unanswered facets, never invents facts. Also explains parallel decomposition across 3,744 tools and 884 sources, and estimated timing (15-60s). 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 4 sentences, front-loaded with main capability. Every sentence adds distinct value: what it does, how it works, when to use, prerequisites, and output format. Slightly long but justified given complexity.

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

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

No output schema exists, so description must explain return values. It mentions structured findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, and gaps array. Covers prerequisites, timing, and depth levels. Missing details on exact JSON structure but sufficient for an agent to use effectively.

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

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

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions: question (natural language, broad/multi-part) and depth (enum with counts). Schema coverage is 100%. Description reinforces that question decomposition is the point, which adds slight context 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?

Description clearly states 'Grounded multi-source research in ONE call' and explains the decomposition and parallel sourcing approach. It distinguishes from sibling tool ask_pipeworx by noting that tool 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?

Explicitly says 'Use for broad or multi-part questions' and gives example query types. Also specifies when not to use: 'use ask_pipeworx for single lookups'. Mentions prerequisites: Pipeworx account and paid plan for 'thorough' depth.

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

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

Annotations already provide safety hints (readOnly, idempotent). Description adds behavioral context: returns top-N tools with full schemas and curated examples, no second lookup needed. 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, dense with information but not overly verbose. Front-loaded with purpose and examples. Slightly long but every sentence 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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return format (top-N tools with names, descriptions, schemas, examples) and use case, fully enabling agent to understand what the tool does.

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. Description adds value by noting alias parameters (q, task, search, description) and providing examples, enhancing understandability.

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 'Find tools by describing the data or task' and lists many specific domains (SEC filings, financials, etc.), distinguishing it from other tools as a discovery/first-step tool.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools', providing clear when-to-use and context relative to alternatives.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive actions. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool fans out across multiple sources, returns specific fields, and notes that the USPTO PatentsView API is sunsetting (soft-fails). This contextualizes behavior 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 paragraph but front-loaded with example user queries. It is dense with information, each sentence adding value. While not overly long, it could be slightly more structured for easier scanning.

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

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

Given the tool has no output schema, the description thoroughly details the return fields and behaviors (e.g., soft-fail for patents). With 2 parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description further clarifies that 'type' is restricted to 'company' and 'value' must be ticker or CIK, explicitly stating that names are not supported. This adds 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It specifies the sources (SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF) and what is returned (CIK, company_name, recent_filings, fundamentals, patents, news, LEI). It distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_entity by noting that names are not supported.

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

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

The description explicitly advises: 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view.' It also provides when-not-to-use guidance: 'Names not supported — use resolve_entity first if you only have a name.' This gives clear context on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond confirming deletion. The description mentions 'clear sensitive data', which adds some context, but not significantly beyond annotations.

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

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

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with primary action. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

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

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

Despite lacking output schema, the tool is simple with one parameter and clear annotations. The description covers purpose, usage, and pairing, making it complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Memory key to delete'. 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 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall'.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier. Pair with remember and recall.' This provides clear when-to-use and 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 readOnlyHint and non-destructive. Description adds that it fetches the page, extracts title/description/links, emits markdown format. Provides behavioral details beyond annotations, though could mention edge cases.

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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then process, then use cases. Highly efficient and 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?

Covers input, process, output (single text blob), and use cases. No output schema but description adequately explains return format. Could mention limitations (dynamic pages, error handling) but not critical for core functionality.

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 both parameters. Description adds a usage example for url but no further semantics for max_links. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 generates an llms.txt file for a given URL, specifying the output format and use cases. Differentiates from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on file generation.

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 use cases (client site, own project, competitor audit), providing clear context. Does not state when not to use or contrast with alternatives, but the sibling list and use cases give adequate guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and data volatility. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the data source (NASA/JPL) and the specific parameters returned, which goes beyond the annotations and provides valuable transparency about the tool's 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information: source, action, and expected output. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary 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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview. It lists the types of output fields (orbit and physical parameters) and mentions 'Keyless' for accessibility. It could note error handling or rate limits, but with annotations covering data volatility and safety, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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

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

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single 'name' parameter described as 'Asteroid/comet name or designation, e.g. "Ceres", "433 Eros", "Halley", "2021 PH27".' The description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond the schema's examples, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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: look up an asteroid or comet by name/designation and return orbit and physical parameters. It also specifies the source (NASA/JPL Solar System Dynamics) and lists example return fields, making the purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools which are unrelated.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. However, the unique function of looking up small bodies is evident from the context, but lacking explicit guidance on usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it is keyless (no authentication needed), returns cumulative impact probability, Palermo/Torino scale, diameter, and impact window for a specific object, or a filtered list. This goes beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the data source. Every sentence adds value: identifying the source, the two modes, and returning fields. No unnecessary words.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description compensates by naming the key fields returned (impact probability, scales, diameter, window). It also clarifies list-mode filtering. However, it does not specify units or format, which could be assumed for a domain-specific tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete 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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description reiterates the modes (list vs. specific) but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as providing Earth impact risk for asteroids from NASA/JPL CNEOS Sentry. It specifies the verb 'pass' and the resource 'asteroid designation' or list query. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_small_body or close_approaches, which cover different aspects of asteroid 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?

The description explicitly states two usage modes: with a designation for a specific object, or without to list all tracked objects above a probability threshold. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the two modes cover the primary use cases clearly.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral detail by indicating that it returns specific fields and defaults to active subscriptions, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction 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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, return fields, and usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It lists return fields and provides usage context. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination, order, or maximum results, which could be relevant for an agent handling large lists. Still, overall adequate.

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 include_inactive, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description does not add new semantic detail beyond stating it affects whether cancelled subscriptions are included. Thus, the description adds minimal 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 that the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions, specifying the verb 'list' and the resource 'subscriptions'. It also enumerates the returned fields which adds specificity. The purpose is distinct 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 use cases: 'Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, implicitly distinguishing it from subscribe and unsubscribe. However, it does not explicitly state 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 are mostly false (not read-only, not idempotent, etc.), but the description adds critical behavioral details: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free (no quota consumption), and the fact that team reads digests daily and feedback affects roadmap. 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 concise yet comprehensive. It front-loads the purpose, then lists use cases, constraints, and tips without redundancy. Every sentence serves a clear function, making it easy to parse.

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 essential aspects: purpose, when to use, message guidelines, rate limits, and quota impact. It lacks details about the response or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for type (enum), context, and message. The description adds some additional context (e.g., examples for message, implied character limit) but does not significantly enhance what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: sending feedback about Pipeworx tools (bugs, features, data gaps, praise). It distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying use cases like when a tool returns wrong data or a desired tool is missing, which is explicit and unique.

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 when-to-use guidance (bug, feature request, etc.) and what not to do (don't paste end-user prompt). It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, but the context of siblings and the tool's unique purpose is clear. Rate-limit and quota info further refine 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: derived from CF analytics-engine, no PII, caching details (5min-1h), and return structure. No contradiction.

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

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

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, data source, privacy, caching. Well-structured and front-loaded 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers return values (top tools, packs, call volume) and includes caching info, making it complete for 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 coverage is 100% with a description for the only parameter. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the trade-off between shorter and longer windows, which enhances agent 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 returns top tools, packs, and call volume over a window, using specific verbs. It provides three use cases that hint at differentiation from siblings like 'discover_tools' but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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?

Three explicit use cases guide when to use the tool, but there is no mention of when not to use it or direct comparison to alternatives. The context is clear but lacks 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. The description adds substantial behavioral details: monotonicity checks, partition-sum logic, Jaccard similarity threshold (≥0.30), placeholder filter, and fill check against live CLOB depth. It does not contradict annotations and provides transparency beyond what annotations offer.

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 slightly verbose, containing technical specifics like Jaccard similarity and placeholder thresholds. It is well-structured with clear sections but could be more concise without losing essential 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 and no output schema, the description fully covers return values (`opportunities[]` with fields, `partition_check` object) and behavior like fill checking. It leaves no obvious gaps for an agent to understand the tool's output and 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% (both parameters documented in schema). The description adds significant value: explains when to use each parameter, gives example slugs, and describes the behavior difference between `event` and `topic`. 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: 'Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks.' It distinguishes between single-event and cross-event modes using `event` and `topic` parameters, providing concrete examples. This clarity helps an agent understand exactly what the tool does.

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

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

The description explicitly states the requirement: 'REQUIRES one of `event` (single-event mode) OR `topic` (cross-event mode) — call with no args fails.' It recommends `event` for specific markets and `topic` for cross-event scanning, explains what each catches, and mentions an alternative tool (`polymarket_fill_risk`) for custom sizing. This provides clear when-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds significant detail on caching (1h KV-level), response segments, and diagnostics, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is extremely verbose and dense, burying key information in a large block of text. It is not front-loaded and could be structured with sections for readability.

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

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

For a complex tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers response structure, segments, diagnostics, caching, and edge-case handling, leaving little ambiguity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema, explaining the rationale behind parameters like min_kelly vs min_partition_leg_kelly, default values, and tradeable-edge filters.

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 a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('top Polymarket markets') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'polymarket_arbitrage' and 'polymarket_kalshi_spread' by focusing on Pipeworx data disagreement.

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 the intended use case ('what should I bet on today') and provides filtering knobs. Does not explicitly list when to avoid using this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description adds significant behavioral context: snapshot TTL of 60 days, decay computed from daily closes (not intraday), and gaps in snapshots. 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 purpose, structured into clear sections (RESPONSE, LIMITS), and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Although no output schema is provided, the description fully details the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) with field explanations. For two parameters, the description is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds default values ('days':14, 'window':'1wk'), notes clamping for days (2-30), and explains window as snapshot family with examples. This adds meaning beyond 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: providing edge persistence and decay telemetry from daily snapshots. It answers a specific question about edge duration and trend, distinguishing it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical persistence and decay.

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 on when to use: to differentiate between a fresh wide edge and an old one. It implies the tool is for historical analysis rather than current edges, but does not explicitly exclude other cases or name alternatives.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: walks the order book ladder, returns verdicts (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), warns about partial fills creating unhedged positions, and specifies size constraints (clamp 10–1,000,000). 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 with bold headers for modes (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET) and a clear call-to-action. However, it is somewhat lengthy; listing return fields adds detail but could be more concise. Still, it earns its sentences.

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, numerous return values, warnings) and lack of output schema, the description is thorough. It explains both modes, return fields, usage warnings, and numerical details, making it complete enough 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining parameter meaning in context (e.g., size_usd meaning differs for single-market vs basket) and default behavior for side in basket mode. This goes beyond the schema's base 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 as a realizable-vs-theoretical edge check using live CLOB order book depth. It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and lists specific return fields, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: before acting on polymarket_arbitrage signals or polymarket_edges trades above ~$500, and explains why (theoretical overround not capturable on thin books, partial basket fills cause unhedged directional positions). This provides clear context and 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description builds on these by explaining the two modes, response structure including compatibility_warning and temporal_alignment fields, and how skipped_cross counters work. 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 detailed and well-structured with clear sections (Modes, Response, Safety Fields). While each sentence adds value, it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response structure: leg-by-leg prices, matched spreads, compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, and skipped_cross counters. This is highly complete for a cross-venue spread tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context: it explains that kalshi_event_ticker and polymarket_event_slug override topic-mapped sides, gives example values, and lists all 10 macro shortcuts for the topic parameter.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool calculates cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same question. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on inter-venue comparison.

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 outlines two modes (topic shortcuts and custom tickers) and provides guidance on when to use each. It also includes warnings that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility warnings, helping the agent understand limitations.

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, destructiveHint). Description adds behavioral details: 'Scoped to your identifier', omitting key lists all saved keys. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Efficient and scannable.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description explains return behavior (value or list) and usage context adequately. No missing information.

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 description for 'key' is clear. The description reiterates 'omit to list all keys' but adds no new semantic 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 explicitly states the tool's action: 'Retrieve a value previously saved via remember, or list all saved keys'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' and 'forget' by naming them and specifying the complementary relationship.

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 provides clear context: 'Use to look up context the agent stored earlier... without re-deriving it from scratch'. It mentions scoping and pairing with remember/forget, though lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining the mark_read side effect and polling behavior. No contradiction.

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

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

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Each sentence adds unique value: purpose, return fields, filter options, side effect, and alternative endpoint.

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 full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers all key aspects: what it returns, filtering, side effects, and alternative usage. No output schema, but description mentions return fields adequately.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions; the description adds context for 'type', 'since', 'mark_read', and 'unread_only' (e.g., 'flag returned events read' and 'only newer ones'), enhancing agent 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 uses a specific verb ('Pull fired events') and resource ('subscription feed'), clearly stating the tool returns recent alerts with key fields. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_subscriptions and the alternative GET endpoint.

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 when to use (pulling alerts, polling) and provides an alternative method (GET endpoint for scripts/dashboards). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance but is otherwise 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 destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the multi-source fan-out, fallback logic, and parameter behavior (e.g., 'since' formats, soft-fail for USPTO). Does not contradict 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, front-loaded with example queries. It is concise but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points). Every sentence provides value.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format (changes grouped by source, total_changes count, citation URIs). It covers multiple data sources and failure modes, making it complete for a complex tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds context: explains 'since' accepts ISO or relative shorthand with examples, suggests typical values ('30d' or '1m'), and clarifies that 'value' can be 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?

The description clearly defines the tool as a change feed for a company, listing multiple sources (SEC, GDELT/GNews, USPTO) and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'entity_profile' by stating when to use the 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 explicit examples of queries ('What's new with X'), explains fallback behavior (GDELT→GNews), and tells the agent to use 'entity_profile' for static profiles without a time window.

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. The description adds value by mentioning the keyless access and data source (U.S. Government sensors), enhancing transparency.

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

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

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the source and summarizes output fields with no unnecessary words.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description lists key return fields. It could mention the default ordering or that results are chronological, but overall it is adequate for understanding the tool's output.

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 does not add additional semantic 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 the tool retrieves recent atmospheric fireballs/bolides from NASA/JPL CNEOS, specifying the data fields (date, energy, location, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools like close_approaches or impact_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 implies usage for obtaining recent fireball events but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives 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?

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds scope by identifier, persistence details (authenticated persistent, anonymous 24h), and pairing behavior, which provides value beyond 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?

Concise and well-structured: purpose, usage, scope, persistence, and pairing are all covered in a few sentences. 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?

For a simple key-value tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what, when, how, persistence, and related tools without 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for key and value. Description adds naming conventions for keys and explains value as free text, enhancing schema 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?

Description clearly states the tool saves data for later reuse, with specific examples like tickers, addresses, and preferences. It distinguishes from siblings ('forget', 'recall') and uses a clear verb+resource pattern.

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 tells when to use ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and pairs with recall/forget. Notes persistence differences for authenticated vs anonymous sessions. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds that each call cascades through several lookup endpoints and auto-disambiguates, 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?

Front-loaded with examples and usage, every sentence adds value. Slightly long but information-dense; could be more concise but still well-structured.

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

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

For a lookup tool without output schema, description specifies return details (ticker+CIK+name, RxCUI+ingredient+brand) and even citation URIs, providing complete context for AI agent to understand 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 descriptions, but description adds examples of valid inputs (ticker, CIK, name for company; brand or generic for drug) and explains auto-disambiguation, enriching the schema definitions.

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

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

Description starts with example queries ('What's the ticker for…') and clearly states the tool resolves names to canonical identifiers. It distinguishes itself by indicating it replaces 2-3 manual lookups, providing clear purpose and differentiation from siblings.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' Provides guidance on when to use for company vs drug types. Lacks explicit 'do not use when' 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, destructiveHint. Description adds internal behavior: probes each entity with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, surfaces most/least recognized. Also details output format: ranked list with score, confidence, signal density. 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficient 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, description fully explains return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). Covers tool behavior, input requirements (2-8 entities), and narrative treatment of first entity. Complete for a read-only comparison tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add extra semantics beyond schema (e.g., doesn't elaborate on models or context usage). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, using ai_visibility_check and ranking. Distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (likely different purpose). Verb 'Compare' and resource 'AI visibility' are specific.

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 provides clear use case: competitive AI-marketing audits, with an example question. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context implies for single entity use ai_visibility_check. No alternatives or exclusions mentioned, but adequate for common scenarios.

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

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

The description adds behavioral traits beyond annotations: it fans out across two services, returns detailed fields (summary block, per-advisory, links, alternative versions), and explains partial failure behavior (bundlephobia first measurement can take 5-30s, sources_failed if times out). No contradiction with annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive).

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

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

The description is a single paragraph but well-structured: starts with main purpose, then usage guidance, return details, limitations, failure behavior. It is informative but slightly verbose; could be tightened without losing information. Every sentence earns its place, so it's effective but not perfectly 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 (composite of two services), the description is complete: it lists return fields explicitly, explains partial failures, and notes ecosystem limitations. No output schema exists, so the description carries full burden, which it meets 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond schema: notes that scoped packages are accepted and explains default version behavior. This adds value but does not drastically enhance meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: a composite check for npm packages using deps.dev and bundlephobia. It specifies the verb 'scan' and resource 'dependency', and distinguishes scope: 'NPM ecosystem only in v1'. The description is specific and distinct from sibling tools, none of which perform similar package scanning.

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

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

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me".' It also gives an alternative for non-NPM ecosystems: 'PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly.' This clearly tells when and 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?

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it specifies return format (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores), technical details (BGE-base-en embeddings, cosine over 500-char windows), and limitation (200K char cap with truncation flag). This fully informs the agent of 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 the core purpose and uses about four sentences efficiently. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. Slightly verbose in the technical details but overall 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?

The description covers purpose, usage guidance, technical mechanics, limitations, and pairing with a sibling tool. Despite no output schema, it describes the return format adequately (passages with offsets and scores). It is complete for an agent to decide and 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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra: it restates the 'max ~200K chars' for text and provides example queries for query. This aligns with the baseline of 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 explicitly states 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' and provides concrete examples (SEC 10-K, article, tool result). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming ask_pipeworx_grounded for grounding over passages.

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

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

The description clearly states when to use: 'when the record is too big to cram into the prompt' and suggests pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the context is clear and useful.

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?

Disclosures beyond annotations: OAuth requirement, return of subscription id, SMS verification and cap, webhook signing secret and auto-disable. 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?

Single paragraph with good details but could be organized with bullets for readability. However, 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 prerequisites, supported types, delivery options, constraints, and return value. No output schema but description explains return of subscription id. 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?

Adds significant value beyond schema with examples for each type and detailed constraints on delivery channels (verification, caps, webhook behavior). Schema coverage is 100% but description enhances usability.

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?

Explicit verb 'Create a proactive monitoring subscription' with clear resource 'live-data event stream'. 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?

Provides context on required OAuth account and types of streams, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives. Context is clear enough for 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral detail: returns example questions, supports optional topic filtering, and draws from a live catalog. 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 verbose with a long list of example queries and parenthetical tool list. While front-loaded and structured, it could be more concise. Some sentences are unnecessary 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?

With one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description thoroughly explains the output (category-bucketed examples with tool shapes), the use case, and parameter effect. It is 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 coverage is 100%, giving baseline 3. Description adds meaning by explaining that omitting topic yields full spread and passing a topic focuses results, plus lists example values. This goes beyond the schema's description.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shapes, and positions it as an onboarding entry point. It uses specific verbs like 'Returns' and distinguishes from numerous sibling tools by being the 'first' tool to use for orientation.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools', providing clear context. While it doesn't state when NOT to use it, the guidance is strong and 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?

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: ownership enforcement, deactivation vs deletion, historical events preserved. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) are consistent and description adds valuable 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded action, zero wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose, ownership, and behavioral nuance.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains purpose, constraints, and side effects (deactivation, history retention). 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 has 100% coverage with description for 'id' parameter. Description does not add extra meaning beyond schema (restates 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe'). 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?

Description explicitly states 'Cancel a subscription by id.' with clear verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings 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?

States ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), providing clear context for when to use. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but purpose 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details: returns a verdict with specific categories, structured form, actual value with citation, and percent delta. It describes the underlying data sources (SEC EDGAR + XBRL). 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 concise (5 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose in examples, followed by usage guidance, then technical details. It is well-structured without unnecessary text, though slight redundancy in examples could be trimmed.

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

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use, supported claims, return format, and replacement of multiple calls. It is complete and provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has one parameter with a description covering basics. The tool description adds examples of claim formats, supported domains, and natural-language nature, enhancing understanding beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 100%, so additional context is valuable.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the tool as a claim verification tool against authoritative sources, with specific examples of use cases (company-financial claims) and alternative phrasings. It distinguishes itself from siblings, none of which perform similar verification.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and specifies the supported domain (company-financial claims). It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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