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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that results are dynamic, drawn from a live catalog, and include exact tool+argument shapes for each example. This goes beyond annotations to explain behavior.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph that efficiently packs trigger phrases, purpose, output details, and parameter usage. Despite its length, it is front-loaded with key usage scenarios. It could be slightly more structured, but it is concise given the amount of 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 has only one optional parameter, no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It explains when to use, what it returns (category-bucketed examples with tool details), and how to focus by topic. 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 schema describes the 'topic' parameter as an optional string with a list of possible values. The description adds context: 'Call with no arguments for the full spread, or pass topic to focus' and gives concrete examples like 'finance', 'pharma', 'betting'. This enriches 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 is an onboarding entry point that returns categorized example questions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ask_pipeworx' and 'discover_tools' by specifying its role as the first tool to use when the agent doesn't know 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?

The description explicitly says to use this tool first when you don't know what Pipeworx can do, and to learn how to call meta-tools. It also describes the optional topic parameter for focusing. While it doesn't list when not to use it, the context is clear.

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