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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds behavioral details: it returns example questions with tool calls, no side effects, and can be called without arguments for broad coverage. No contradiction.

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

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

The description is well-structured with common questions at the start, then a clear explanation of functionality and usage. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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

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

Given the tool's role as an onboarding entry point, the description is complete: it explains what it returns (categories, exact tool calls), how to use it (with/without topic), and when to use it. No output schema needed.

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

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

Schema covers 100% of parameters with a brief description. Description adds significant value by listing the acceptable topic values and explaining behavior with and without the parameter, going beyond the schema.

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

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

The description uses specific verbs ('Returns category-bucketed example questions') and clearly states the resource ('Pipeworx') and purpose (onboarding entry point). It distinguishes from siblings by being the first tool to use when learning what Pipeworx can do.

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 ('first when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do'), provides alternatives ('meta-tools like ask_pipeworx, entity_profile'), and explains when to pass topic vs. omit.

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