Landregistry Uk

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds key behavioral details: _apiKey is passed straight through to Anthropic, Workers AI is free, and results include per-model objects plus combined view. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Description is six sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value—default model, optional key, return format, use cases. No redundancy or filler.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (multiple models, scoring, optional key), the description covers return format (per-model objects + combined view), model options, and use cases. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains outputs. Annotations already cover safety and idempotency.

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

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

Schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds semantics: default model name, free tier, and that context helps disambiguate common names, which goes beyond what the schema offers.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and scores visibility 0-100 per model. It specifies verb (probe, score), resource (business/brand/product/topic), and distinguishes from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on per-model scoring.

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

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

The description provides clear context for when to use: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. It explains when to pass _apiKey for Anthropic and that default model is free. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives like scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context: it routes to 4,482 tools, fills arguments, returns structured answers with citation URIs, and works on every tier. 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 relatively long but front-loaded with the key instruction ('PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'). Every sentence adds value, with examples and sibling distinctions. Could be slightly more concise but remains well-structured.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (routing to many sources), no output schema, the description covers input format, return type (structured answer with citation URIs), examples, and even breaking news behavior. Complete for the task.

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 explains the parameter is a natural language question and lists aliases (q, text, input, etc.), adding context beyond the schema. Examples reinforce usage.

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 routes factual questions to a vast set of authoritative sources, distinguishing it from siblings like web search or deep_research. It uses specific verbs and examples.

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 recommends preferring this tool over web search, provides examples of suitable queries, and specifies when to use alternatives (ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research). Covers when-not-to-use.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds refusal reasons, evidence sourcing, and return format, going beyond annotations.

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

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

Description is detailed but not verbose; every sentence adds value. Could be slightly shortened without losing clarity, but well-structured with front-loaded purpose.

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

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

No output schema provided, yet description fully details return format and refusal cases. Explanation of routing and behavior is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%; all parameters are aliases for question. Description does not add additional semantic information beyond what schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool is a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by noting the extra LLM call and the extraction-only behavior.

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 answers that will be quoted/cited/acted on and when agent must not invent facts; advises preferring ask_pipeworx for casual 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds extensive behavioral context: fan-out logic, response shapes, resolver contract, parent-event extraction, news fallback handling, safety blocks for low-confidence or closed markets, spread warnings, and resolution-rule risk. No contradictions with annotations. The description far exceeds what annotations provide.

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

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

The description is lengthy but appropriately so given the tool's complexity. It front-loads the core purpose and use cases, then provides detailed but structured information about classifiers, fan-out examples, response shapes, and safety mechanisms. Every section adds value, though a few sentences could be streamlined (e.g., very specific fan-out examples). Overall, it earns its length.

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

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

The tool is complex with 3 parameters, no output schema, and numerous behavioral facets. The description covers all critical aspects: input formats, fan-out logic per category, response fields (market, analysis, evidence, resolver, parent event, news), safety mechanisms, and resolution-rule details. Given the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably thorough and leaves no meaningful gap.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value: it provides multiple examples of the 'market' parameter (slug, URL, question text), explains the 'depth' enum with defaults, and details the trade-offs of 'include_raw' (response size vs. completeness). Each parameter's purpose and behavior are enriched well beyond the schema.

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

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

The description opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies the exact input types (slug, URL, question text) and lists explicit use cases ('Use for...'). Although it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like polymarket_edges, the purpose is unambiguous and comprehensive.

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: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' This provides clear context and scenarios. It does not mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, which would justify a 5, but the provided guidance is still strong.

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, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: handles off-calendar fiscal years correctly, sorts results by primary metric, and returns citation URIs. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with common user queries, then provides structured details. It is efficient, with each sentence earning its place. Slightly verbose in listing examples but still clear.

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 (paired data, citation URIs, sorted by primary metric) and data sources for each type. It also provides usage context (replaces 8-15 sequential lookups). Complete for a 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 coverage is 100%, both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description adds context about what data is fetched for each type (e.g., 'pulls latest 10-K revenue' for company, 'FAERS counts' for drug). This is helpful but incremental 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 verb 'compare' and the resource 'entities', and lists natural language triggers ('Compare X and Y', 'X vs Y', etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly preferring over sequential single-pack lookups, referencing the sibling 'entity_profile' implicitly.

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

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

Explicit guidance to prefer this tool over sequential lookups when comparing entities. Provides negative guidance ('avoid sequential') and includes example queries ('which is bigger', 'rank these companies'), making usage context crystal clear.

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

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), description adds execution time (15-60s), decomposition and parallel routing, output structure (evidence, confidence, gaps[]), and behavior when topic not in catalog (returns empty gaps). No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Description is fairly long but well-structured, front-loading critical constraints (account required, fallback). Every sentence adds value; could be slightly more concise but acceptable for a complex 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?

Covers purpose, mechanism, constraints, alternatives, output format, and limitations. No output schema, so return format is described. Complete for a research tool with many sibling tools.

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 already describes both parameters, but description adds practical context: depth enums explained with counts and plan restrictions, question parameter noted as natural language and suitable for broad queries.

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

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

The description clearly states it performs multi-source research across structured data, decomposing questions into facets and running parallel tools. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx by specifying use cases for broad/multi-part questions vs 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 provides when to use (broad/multi-part), when not to (single lookup, breaking news), and alternatives (ask_pipeworx for fallback). Also notes account requirements and depth plan 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: each result is 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed.' This goes beyond annotations and enhances transparency.

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

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

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then use cases, then output details. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or unnecessary information. Highly concise and well-structured.

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

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

Given the tool is for discovery and has no output schema, the description adequately explains return value (top-N tools with schemas and examples). It covers the main use cases and behavioral notes. However, it could mention that multiple alias parameters exist but that is covered by schema.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all 6 parameters (including aliases). The description does not add new semantic details about parameters beyond mentioning 'query' and 'limit' implicitly, 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 'Find tools by describing the data or task' and lists many domains (SEC filings, financials, etc.). It specifies that it returns top-N relevant tools with names, descriptions, and full input schemas, distinguishing it from sibling tools that are more specific (e.g., search_transactions).

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

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

The description says 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist for:' followed by examples, and explicitly advises 'Call this FIRST ... when you have many tools available.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) are consistent. Description adds transparency about USPTO PatentsView API sunsetting May 2025 and soft-fail behavior, plus details on parallel execution and return fields.

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

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

Description is relatively long but front-loaded with example queries and well-structured. Every sentence contributes value, though slight redundancy could be trimmed. Appropriate for complexity.

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

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

Given no output schema, description provides detailed return fields (cik, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals, patents with soft-fail, news, LEI). Covers fallback mechanisms and sibling tool guidance, making it highly 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% with clear enum and description for 'type' and description for 'value'. Description reinforces input constraints and adds context about using resolve_entity for names, adding value beyond schema.

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

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

The description explicitly states the tool provides a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It lists data sources, fields returned, and input types (ticker or CIK), clearly distinguishing from chaining 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?

States 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view' and warns that names are not supported, advising to use resolve_entity first. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'clear sensitive data', which is already implied by deletion. 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states the action, second gives usage guidance. 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and pairing 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 description coverage is 100% and adequately describes the 'key' parameter. The description does not add any extra detail 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 explicitly states the verb (delete) and resource (memory by key). It distinguishes from sibling tools 'remember' and 'recall' by mentioning pairing, clarifying its unique role.

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

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

Provides clear when-to-use conditions: stale context, task completion, or clearing sensitive data. Also suggests pairing with remember and recall, offering 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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' This goes beyond annotations and provides useful context about the tool's operation.

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

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

The description is three sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose and output, second explains process, third lists use cases. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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

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

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, process, and use cases. Minor omissions: no mention of error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for a read-only, idempotent 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 both 'url' and 'max_links'. The description does not add significant extra meaning for the parameters, though it provides context about the output format. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL', specifies the output format and purpose for AI crawlers (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which are unrelated to llms.txt 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?

The description explicitly lists three use cases: 'getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor.' It does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the use cases are 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?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the specific return fields and default behavior (active subscriptions), providing useful context 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. First sentence defines purpose and output, second sentence provides usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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

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

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by listing six return fields. It covers the essential output and usage context. Lacks pagination or size limits, but sufficient for a simple list operation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter include_inactive already described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond implying the default (active subscriptions). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists the caller's active subscriptions and enumerates the exact fields returned (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). This distinguishes it 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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' This provides clear context and practical 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 behavioral details: data source (HM Land Registry), ordering (newest first), and required fields returned. This exceeds the annotations 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 a single concise sentence with an additional note on format, front-loading the core purpose. Every part is essential and no waste exists.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers data source, returned fields, ordering, and input format. Combined with rich annotations, it provides complete context for 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 both parameters described. The description repeats the postcode format example and implies default limit, but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description explicitly states it lists the most recent HM Land Registry property sales for a single UK postcode, specifying fields returned, ordering, and geographic scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools which cover unrelated domains like AI visibility, betting, or entity resolution.

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

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to get property sales for a postcode) and includes format requirements. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but given the sibling tools, no direct alternative exists, making the guidance 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 are provided but minimal; the description adds significant behavioral context: 'The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap,' rate limits, and that it doesn't count against quota. No contradiction between description and 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 cover purpose, usage, constraints, and behavior. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second expands on when and how. No redundancy.

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

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

Given the tool has 3 parameters, 2 required, nested object, and no output schema, the description fully covers the feedback use case. It explains the feedback types, what to include, rate limits, and how feedback is used. No missing information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; for example, the 'type' enum is already well-described in the schema. The description repeats the enum rationale but adds no new semantic details.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and the use cases (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) distinguish it from sibling tools that are mostly query or action 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise).' Also provides negative guidance: 'don't paste the end-user's prompt.' Mentions rate limits ('5 per identifier per day') and that it's free.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: data source ('CF analytics-engine'), privacy ('no PII'), and caching policy ('cached 5min-1h'). No contradictions.

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

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

The description is four sentences long, front-loading the core purpose, then listing use cases, then adding technical details. No wasted words. Clear structure.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the output, data source, privacy, and caching. It lacks explicit mention of result format limits or pagination, but overall is highly complete.

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

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

The single parameter 'window' is fully covered by the schema with enum and description. The description adds semantic nuance: 'Shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand.' This enriches 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, top packs, and total call volume' over a specified window, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools by focusing on trending/usage 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 lists three explicit use cases for the tool, providing clear context on when it is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for comparison.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant context: required args, how arbitrage detection works (semantic anchor, partition filter, fill check), failure conditions (realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0), and output structure. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is quite lengthy and includes technical details (e.g., Jaccard similarity, partition filter thresholds) that may be excessive for a quick read. While front-loaded with the key requirement, the density of information could be streamlined. Still, it is well-structured with clear sections.

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 lack of output schema, the description covers input requirements, detection logic, output structure, and one related tool. However, it omits authentication, rate limits, and explicitly clarifies the ambiguous reference to 'arbitrage.fill_check'. Overall sufficient but slightly incomplete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the behavioral difference between 'event' (single-event) and 'topic' (cross-event), providing examples, and noting that full Polymarket URLs are accepted for 'event'. This goes 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's purpose: finding arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes two modes (event and topic) with distinct use cases, providing specific examples. This effectively differentiates it from sibling 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 explicitly requires one of 'event' or 'topic', warns against calling with no args, and recommends event for specific markets and topic for cross-event scanning. It mentions that cross-event mode catches patterns single-event misses and points to polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or fully contrast with siblings like polymarket_edges.

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

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by detailing the three model families, response structure, edge calculation (edge_pp_net, kelly_fraction), tradeable-edge knobs, diagnostics, and caching policy. Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, and the description adds rich operational context without 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 comprehensive but verbose; it front-loads the purpose and then details model families, response structure, knobs, and diagnostics. While every sentence adds value, it 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 9 parameters, no output schema, and the tool's complexity, the description is extremely complete. It explains return format, edge calculation, filtering gates, diagnostics, and even notes about Fed bets. An agent can fully understand what to invoke and what to expect.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description's mention of knobs adds only marginal context beyond schema descriptions. It explains how min_liquidity/max_spread_pp drop opportunities, but this is already implied by schema names and descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool scans Polymarket markets for opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, and explicitly frames it for 'what should I bet on today'. It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on Pipeworx-driven edges.

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

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

The description provides clear usage context ('discover opportunities without paging hundreds of markets') and explains when to use tradeable-edge knobs. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct contrast with sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: snapshots are written only on cache-miss (so gaps mean no scan), history depth is bounded by 60-day TTL, and decay numbers are from daily closes, not intraday. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then details the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]) and limitations. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be condensed slightly without loss of clarity.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the response fields (tracked, expired, snapshot_dates) including their structure and meaning. It also covers edge cases (gaps, history bound) and provides all necessary context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description slightly restates them (e.g., 'max 30' vs schema's 'clamp 2-30') but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so 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: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers the specific question of how long an edge has existed and whether it is shrinking, which distinguishes it from siblings like polymarket_edges that likely provide current edge 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 provides context on when to use the tool ('a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades') and specifies limitations (60-day snapshot TTL, decay from daily closes). While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the sibling list includes polymarket_edges, implying its use for current edges. The guidance is clear but could have explicit when-not-to-use.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds rich behavioral details: it walks the order-book ladder, returns specific verdicts (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), explains basket-mode logic with forced directional risk, and mentions the dominant loss mode for arb bots. This far exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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

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

The description is long but well-structured with clear sections (overview, single-market, basket, usage warning). It front-loads the core purpose and requirement. While every sentence adds value, the length could be reduced slightly without losing clarity, but it remains appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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

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

Given the tool's dual-mode complexity, lack of output schema, and critical risk implications, the description is remarkably complete. It explains return fields for each mode, default behaviors, edge cases (thin legs, forced directional risk), and integrates with sibling tools. No significant gaps remain.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions. The description adds significant extra meaning: it explains the 'side' default logic in basket mode (auto from partition sum), interprets 'size_usd' differently for single-market vs basket (settlement notional), and clarifies which parameters are required under which mode. This compensates fully for the lack of an output 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, lists key return fields, and explicitly states when to use it relative to sibling tools polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 is explicit about when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also warns about not capturable theoretical overround on thin books and the risk of partial basket fills converting an arb into an unhedged directional position, effectively saying when not to rely on 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?

Description fully discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint). It explains response structure, safety fields (compatibility_warning), temporal alignment, and skipped cross-type/subtype counters. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (two modes, response, safety fields) and front-loaded with core purpose. While slightly verbose, each sentence adds value; could be trimmed slightly but remains efficient.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (cross-venue, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all response fields, compatibility warnings, temporal alignment, and counters, ensuring the agent understands how to interpret results and limitations.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning by explaining the two modes, how parameters interact (override behavior), and the exact values for the topic enum. It provides example usage and clarifies the purpose of each 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 is a cross-venue spread calculator between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes from siblings like 'polymarket_arbitrage' by focusing on matching outcomes across venues with specific compatibility checks.

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

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

It explicitly describes two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers) and when to use each. It warns that most pre-mapped topics return compatibility warnings, guiding users to expect limited tradeable spreads. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but is implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context about scoping to identifiers and pairing with remember/forget, 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?

Three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: action, use case, and context. No wasted words, front-loaded with the main function.

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 one optional parameter, annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers what, when, and how to use it, including scoping and relationships.

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 essentially restates the schema's info (omit key to list all keys). No additional semantic depth 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 verb (Retrieve/list) and resource (previously saved memory values), and it distinguishes from siblings remember and forget by explicitly naming them.

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

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

It explains when to use the tool (look up context stored earlier) and mentions scoping, but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternative tools beyond the pairing note.

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 destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: it explains that setting mark_read:true flags returned events as read so subsequent calls show only newer ones. It also mentions the feed is persisted and the raw event payload is included, going 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 a single concise paragraph of 5 sentences, each adding value. It front-loads the main action and return information, then explains parameters and usage. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains return values (source, citation_uri, raw payload). It covers all five optional parameters and their effects, including the practical note about mark_read and the alternative HTTP endpoint. For a tool with no required parameters and no nested objects, this is complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds practical meaning: it provides an example filter type 'sec_8k', explains that 'since' is an ISO timestamp, and clarifies that mark_read affects the feed state. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed.' It specifies what is returned (source, citation_uri, raw payload) and mentions filtering by type and since. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'recent_changes' and 'list_subscriptions' by focusing on alert events from a subscription feed.

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

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

The description provides usage guidance by noting that 'Polls work fine' and that the same feed is accessible via a GET endpoint for scripts and dashboards, indicating when to use this tool versus alternative access. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or 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 already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds significant behavioral context: fans out to multiple APIs, fallback strategy, rate-limit handling, sunset timeline, and return format. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

Description is detailed but front-loaded with common queries and explanatory structure. Every sentence contributes useful information. Could trim some redundancy (e.g., repeated fallback explanation) but overall efficient.

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

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

Given no output schema, description adequately summarizes return structure (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, URIs). Mentions soft-fail for USPTO. Missing field-level details for changes[] but acceptable for a complex tool with openWorldHint.

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

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

Schema covers all 3 params with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds value by providing examples for since (''''7d'''', ''30d'') and clarifying value accepts both ticker and CIK. Falls short of adding unique syntax or constraints not in schema.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool provides a change feed for a company (filings, news, patents) from multiple sources. It distinguishes from sibling entity_profile by specifying when to use each. The various example queries further clarify purpose.

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

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

Explicitly outlines when to use (queries like 'what's new with X') and provides an alternative (entity_profile for static profile). Includes details on fallback behavior (GDELT→GNews) and limitations (USPTO soft-fail), guiding appropriate usage.

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

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: persistence details (24-hour for anonymous, permanent for authenticated), scoping by identifier, and the nature of storage (key-value). Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive; description aligns and enriches.

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: first sentence states core purpose, second gives usage context, third adds technical details, fourth pairs with siblings. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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

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

No output schema exists, but tool is a write operation so return value is secondary. Description covers storage behavior, scoping, and pairing. Could optionally mention return confirmation, but not essential.

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 clear descriptions for both key and value. Description adds little beyond schema (e.g., 'any text' is already in schema). 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?

Clearly describes the tool as saving data for reuse, with specific verb 'save data' and resource 'key-value pair'. Explicitly distinguishes from siblings recall and forget by stating pairing instructions.

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

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when you discover something worth carrying forward'). Mentions alternatives: recall and forget. Also notes session scoping differences between authenticated and anonymous users.

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

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

Description adds that each call cascades through several endpoints internally and details return values for each type, supplementing the read-only, idempotent annotations with actionable behavioral context.

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

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

Well-structured with front-loaded examples. Every sentence is informative; no unnecessary text.

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

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

Despite no output schema, description thoroughly explains return values for both entity types. Covers all necessary context for an AI agent to use the tool 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?

Schema already covers both parameters completely. Description enriches by specifying accepted formats for each type (e.g., ticker, CIK, name for company) and output details, adding value beyond the schema.

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

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

Description clearly states it resolves names to canonical IDs, with specific examples and supported types. Distinct from sibling tools like compare_entities or entity_profile.

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 context on replacing multiple lookups, but does not explicitly exclude cases where 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that it probes each entity, ranks, and returns score/confidence/signal density, along with the narrative that first entity is the subject. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence provides critical information without waste.

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

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

No output schema, but description explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). All parameters are documented in schema, and the description adds usage context. Reasonably complete for a 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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the first entity in the array is treated as the 'subject' for narrative and the rest as competitors, which is not in the schema.

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

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

The description explicitly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, probes with ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and identifies most/least recognized. It clearly distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check which operates on single entities.

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

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

The description provides a clear use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') with an example question, implying when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context against siblings 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, destructiveHint. Description adds significant behavioral context: fans out to external services, partial failures degrade gracefully with sources_failed field, and bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s. This adds value beyond annotations.

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

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

Description is detailed and well-structured with front-loaded purpose. Could be slightly more concise (e.g., split into bullet points), but no wasted 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?

Despite no output schema, description comprehensively details return fields (summary block, per-advisory, links, alternative versions) and behavior (partial failures). Complete for a composite lookup tool with annotations.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. Description adds meaning: 'version' defaults to latest when omitted, and 'package' accepts scoped packages (e.g., @types/node). Adds value but schema already does 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?

The description clearly states it is a composite check for npm packages combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data, with a specific verb 'scan' and resource 'dependency'. It distinguishes from siblings by being the only tool that aggregates these checks into one call.

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 whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. Also provides limitations (NPM only, partial failures, bundlephobia latency), guiding appropriate use.

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

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

The description complements the annotations by disclosing the return fields, postcode format requirement, and data range. It adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations.

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

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

The description is concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, filters, and return fields/postcode format. No extraneous text.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description explains return fields. It covers input filters, sorting, pagination, and data range. The annotations provide additional safety context, making it thorough.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a summary of filter types and postcode format, but does not significantly expand on individual parameter meanings 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 it searches HM Land Registry Price Paid records with specific filters. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing the data source and filter types.

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 searching property sale records, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. However, the specificity of the data source and filters provides clarity.

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 valuable behavioral details beyond these: it specifies the embedding model ('BGE-base-en embeddings'), similarity metric ('cosine'), chunking strategy ('500-char overlapping windows'), and a 200K character cap with truncation behavior. This fully discloses the underlying mechanics and limitations, which is more than annotations provide.

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

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

The description is concise (5 sentences) and front-loaded with the essential action. It wastes no words and each sentence adds value: purpose, when to use, pairing with sibling, internal mechanics, and constraints. The structure is logical: what it does, why use it, how it works under the hood.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return values: 'top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores.' It also covers edge cases like truncation ('longer inputs are truncated and flagged'). Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, semantic search), the description provides complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. However, the description adds contextual meaning: it explains that 'text' is the document content (already fetched), 'query' is a natural-language question, and the result includes 'top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores.' This enriches the schema by tying parameters to the actual use case and output format.

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: 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record.' It specifies the action ('search'), the resource ('inside a fetched record'), and distinguishes it from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded by noting it works on already-fetched text and returns passages with offsets, which is useful for verifying quotes. This goes beyond a vague purpose and differentiates from similar 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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also gives an alternative workflow: 'Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document.' This clearly tells the agent when and when not to use the tool, and how it fits with other tools.

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

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

The description fully discloses prerequisites (OAuth account), subscription types, delivery channel constraints (email, SMS with verification and rate limit, webhook with signing), and idempotency (idempotentHint true). 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 thorough and well-structured, with the purpose front-loaded. While slightly verbose, every sentence contributes valuable information. No unnecessary repetition.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, multiple subscription types, delivery options, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains return value, prerequisites, limitations, and provides examples for each type.

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 significant value with examples for each type (sec_8k, polymarket_edge, etc.) and detailed constraints on delivery channels (e.g., phone verification, webhook HMAC signing). This goes well beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool creates a proactive monitoring subscription to a live-data event stream and returns the subscription id. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe.

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

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

The description explains when to use the tool (for proactive monitoring), requires a Pipeworx OAuth account, and details supported types and delivery channels. It implies when not to use (e.g., anonymous users) but does not explicitly name 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that the tool draws from a live catalog of thousands of tools, and that it returns example questions with the exact tool+argument shape. This provides context beyond the annotations 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 fairly long but well-structured. It starts with common trigger phrases, explains the return format, and then provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed. It is front-loaded with the most important information.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains what it returns (category-bucketed questions), how to use the topic parameter, and when to use it. It could mention that it is always available or has no cost, but that is not critical.

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

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

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the topic parameter. The description adds meaning by listing example focus areas ('finance', 'pharma', 'betting') and explaining that omitting the parameter gives a cross-category spread. This clarifies usage 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 the tool's purpose as the onboarding entry point for an agent to discover what Pipeworx can do. It uses specific verbs ('returns category-bucketed example questions') and distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and entity_profile by noting it shows example questions with exact tool+argument shapes.

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 to use this tool first when the agent does not know what Pipeworx can do, and to learn how to call meta-tools. It also explains the topic parameter for focusing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, though it is implied for subsequent interactions.

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

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: ownership enforcement and deactivation (not deletion). This aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and provides crucial transparency for a mutation tool.

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 succinct sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds value: first states the core action, second explains ownership and behavior. Perfectly front-loaded.

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

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

For a single-param, no-output-schema tool with good annotations, the description fully addresses purpose, ownership, behavior, and idempotency. No gaps remain.

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

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

The single parameter 'id' has full schema coverage (100%) and a clear description in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Cancel' and resource 'subscription by id'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'subscribe' (which creates) and 'list_subscriptions' (which lists), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides clear context: ownership enforcement (only cancel own subscriptions) and behavioral note (deactivation vs deletion). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, these guidelines sufficiently inform correct 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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the return types (verdict, structured form, citation, delta) and explaining that it replaces multiple sequential calls, providing operational context beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is concise yet informative, front-loading key phrases like 'Is it true that...' and 'fact check.' It packs essential information without redundancy, though slightly longer due to examples and scope details.

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

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

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return structure (verdict types, citation, delta) and the tool's role as a composite call. Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter) and annotations, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single required parameter. The description adds semantic value by specifying the scope (company-financial claims) and providing example claim formats, which helps the agent understand acceptable input 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: verifying natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources. It uses specific verbs like 'check,' 'fact check,' and 'verify,' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by claiming it replaces multiple sequential calls.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also notes that v1 supports company-financial claims, implying scope limitations, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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