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

Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds context by explaining the output format (category-bucketed example questions with exact tool calls) and that it draws from a live catalog, which is valuable 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 front-loaded with natural language questions, uses concise wording, and every sentence provides essential information. There is no fluff 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?

For an onboarding tool, the description is fully complete: it explains what it does, what it returns, how to call it, when to use it, and mentions related meta-tools. No output schema is needed as the return format is described clearly.

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 meaning: it explains the `topic` parameter's purpose ('to focus'), provides example values (finance, pharma, etc.), and clarifies behavior when omitted ('cross-category spread'). This goes well beyond the schema description.

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

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

The description clearly states it is an onboarding entry point for discovering what questions can be asked about Pipeworx, listing example queries and output categories. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly recommending use 'FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you'.

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 this tool: 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools'. It also provides guidance on arguments: 'Call with no arguments for the full spread, or pass `topic` to focus'.

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