onthisday

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 valuable context: default free model, optional paid Anthropic probing, and return structure including score, confidence, signals, raw_response. 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 concise (two main sentences plus clear detail) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return format per model and combined view. It covers defaults, optional parameters, and use cases, making it complete for an LLM probing tool given its complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description enhances understanding by explaining the default model, the role of _apiKey for Anthropic, and how 'context' disambiguates entities. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's action ('probe one or more LLMs') and outcome ('score visibility 0-100 per model'). It specifies the resource (LLMs) and distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on any entity, not just competitors.

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

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

The description provides explicit use cases: 'AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the use cases are clear and sufficient for an AI agent.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool picks the right data source, fills arguments automatically, and returns results. However, it lacks details on limitations (e.g., data source availability, error handling, or rate limits), which are important for a tool with such broad functionality.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by supporting details and examples. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying usage, differentiating from alternatives, and illustrating with examples, with no wasted words or redundant 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 (natural language querying with automatic tool selection) and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the process and providing examples. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential limitations or the types of data sources available, which would help set user expectations more fully.

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 value by explaining the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's 'natural language' note: it emphasizes 'plain English' questions and provides examples like 'Look up adverse events for ozempic,' giving concrete context for how to formulate the question parameter effectively.

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: 'Ask a question in plain English and get an answer from the best available data source.' It specifies the verb ('ask'), resource ('answer'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing natural language interaction without needing to browse tools or learn schemas.

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: 'No need to browse tools or learn schemas — just describe what you need.' It provides clear alternatives by implication (use other tools for structured queries) and includes concrete examples like 'What is the US trade deficit with China?' to illustrate appropriate 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 indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description supplements this with details on refusal reasons, evidence extraction, and the cost trade-off (one extra LLM call). 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 a single paragraph that packs significant detail without redundancy. It front-loads purpose, then provides usage, behavior, and return structure. Slightly dense but 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 (6 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description fully covers the output structure (answer, evidence, refusal reasons), usage context, and behavioral nuances. It leaves no critical gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the question parameter accepts natural language and lists aliases, which 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 defines the tool as a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads. It specifies the verb (ask) and resource (Pipeworx tools), and distinguishes it from the sibling ask_pipeworx by highlighting the extra LLM call and intended use cases.

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 guidance on when to use (high-stakes reads, financial verdicts, legal claims) and when not to (casual lookups, prefer ask_pipeworx). It also explains the refusal reasons, helping the agent decide 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?

The description goes far beyond annotations, detailing resolution, classification, fan-out, response shapes, resolver contract, parent event extractor, news fields, safety mechanisms (low-confidence, closed markets, wide spreads), and status codes. This fully informs the agent of behavioral traits.

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

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

The description is long but well-structured with clear sections (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, etc.). It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While verbose, every section serves a purpose given 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 complexity (multiple data sources, classifications, response fields) and no output schema, the description is extremely complete. It covers all key aspects: resolution, fan-out, response shapes, safety, edge cases, and error states.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds context for the 'include_raw' parameter (response size impact) and provides input format examples for 'market'. This adds value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool researches a Polymarket bet by pulling Pipeworx data. It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on a single bet's data and evidence packet.

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 for 'should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', or 'is there edge in Z'. It provides classifiers and examples but does not explicitly state when not to use or list 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns 'paired data + pipeworx:// resource URIs' but does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, or limitations. For a read-only comparison tool, this is adequate but lacks detail on error handling or data structure.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at two sentences. It starts with the core purpose, then immediately details the data returned for each type. Every sentence adds unique value, with 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 moderate complexity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input rules, and output summary. It would benefit from clarifying the structure of the 'paired data' output, but it is sufficient for an AI agent to select and 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, describing both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of each entity type and providing examples for the 'values' parameter (e.g., tickers for company, drug names). This helps the agent understand how to construct valid inputs beyond what the schema alone 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: comparing 2–5 entities side by side. It specifies two entity types (company and drug) with distinct data fields, and uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('entities'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which do not perform comparisons.

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 that the tool replaces 8–15 sequential agent calls, implying it should be used when comparing multiple entities simultaneously. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to understand its primary use case.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the search functionality and return format (tools with names and descriptions), but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate gap, as it covers the core operation but misses operational constraints.

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 and well-structured, with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first explains the tool's function, and the second provides usage guidance. There is no wasted text, and key information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's role.

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 (a search tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, and return format, but lacks details on output structure or behavioral constraints. Since there is no output schema, the description could benefit from more on return values, but it's adequate for basic understanding.

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 both parameters (query and limit) thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Pipeworx tool catalog'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on discovery rather than data retrieval like get_births, get_deaths, and get_events. It explicitly mentions returning relevant tools with names and descriptions, which is distinct from the sibling tools that likely fetch specific data 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 provides explicit usage guidelines: it specifies when to use this tool ('Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task') and implies when not to use it (e.g., for direct data retrieval tasks handled by siblings). It clearly positions this as a discovery tool for large catalogs, offering a clear alternative to manually browsing or guessing among many 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description details the multi-source parallel fetch (SEC, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF), return fields (cik, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals sorted, patents soft-fail, news fallback), and notes a imminent source sunset (USPTO PatentsView). 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 front-loaded with query examples and key usage advice, then logically details behavior, sources, and return format. It is comprehensive but slightly verbose (e.g., 'USPTO PatentsView API sunset May 2025 — soft-fails until reactivated' could be condensed). Still, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-source profile) and absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned (cik, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals with sorting, patents status, news fallback). It covers edge cases (name not supported, missing patent source) and provides enough context for correct 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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds essential context: 'value' accepts ticker or zero-padded CIK (with example), 'type' is only 'company' currently, and names are explicitly unsupported. This extra detail prevents misinterpretation.

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 produces a 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call,' enumerating specific data sources and return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by recommending it over chaining individual SEC/XBRL/news 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: when the user asks for a holistic view ('Tell me about X', 'company profile for Microsoft'). It instructs to prefer this tool over chaining and notes that names are not supported (use resolve_entity first). Examples of valid inputs (ticker or CIK) are given.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, returns confirmation, or handles errors (e.g., invalid keys). This leaves significant gaps 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, permanence) and output expectations, which are critical for safe and effective tool invocation in this context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'key' documented as 'Memory key to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as key format or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description 'Delete a stored memory by key' clearly states a specific action (delete) on a specific resource (stored memory) using a specific identifier (key). It distinguishes from siblings like 'recall' (retrieve) and 'remember' (store), establishing a clear 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing memory key), exclusions (e.g., what happens if the key doesn't exist), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'recall' for retrieval or 'remember' for storage.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it fetches pages and extracts info, which is useful but does not significantly extend beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise: two sentences followed by a colon and a list of use cases. Front-loaded with core purpose, no redundant 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 clear schema, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about output format (text blob) and use cases. Adequate for agent understanding.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds context for 'url' (full URL) and 'max_links' (default 25, max 50), but these are minor additions to the schema's own descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool generates an llms.txt file for a URL, with specific details on content extraction and output format. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being unique in purpose; none of the sibling tools directly compete.

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

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

Explicitly lists three use cases: indexing a client's site, drafting for own project, or auditing a competitor. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the use cases are clear and context-rich.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it returns a list but doesn't describe format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple lookup 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?

For a simple read tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., response format, error handling) that would help an agent use it correctly, especially given the absence of 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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions 'specific month and day' but doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., month 1-12, day 1-31). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 specific action ('Get a list'), resource ('notable people born'), and scope ('on a specific month and day across all years'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_deaths' and 'get_events' by focusing exclusively on births rather than deaths or events.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get a list'), implying it is non-destructive, but does not address other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes essential details like scope ('across all years'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It does not explain what the return value includes (e.g., list structure, fields like names or years), potential limitations (e.g., data source, pagination), or error conditions. For a tool with no structured output information, the description should provide more context to compensate.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('month' and 'day'), including their types and valid ranges. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage examples. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of notable people who died on a specific month and day across all years.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('list of notable people'), and scope ('across all years'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_births' or 'get_events' beyond the focus on deaths, which is implied but not stated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'get_births' or 'get_events' for comparison, nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for usage. The agent must infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read-only operation ('Get a list'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. The absence of annotations means critical behavioral traits are undocumented, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose without unnecessary words. It directly conveys the tool's function and scope, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (2 simple parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., response structure, error handling), which are needed for full contextual understanding in the absence of 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting both parameters (month and day) with their types and ranges. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or edge cases, so it meets the baseline for high schema 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 ('Get') and resource ('list of historical events'), specifying the scope ('on a specific month and day across all years'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on general events rather than births or deaths, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives.

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 context by specifying 'historical events on a specific month and day,' suggesting it's for date-based queries. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling tools (get_births, get_deaths), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false. Description adds that it returns specific fields and includes optional parameter for inactive subscriptions. 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 front-loaded purpose. Every sentence provides value: purpose, return fields, usage guidance. No 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?

Given simple tool (1 param, no output schema), description covers purpose, return fields, and usage scenarios. Adequate for an agent to select and invoke 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 has 100% coverage with parameter description. Description does not add further parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it does list return fields. 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 states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes 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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'. Provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons.

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?

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: rate limiting, intended content, and that it's free. Does not detail response or privacy, but sufficient for a feedback 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus rate limit note. Front-loaded with purpose and use cases. No fluff.

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 feedback tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, usage, constraints, and parameter details thoroughly. No gaps.

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

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

Schema has 100% coverage, but description adds value by explaining enum choices in plain language and giving format guidance (e.g., '1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max') and context 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's purpose: 'Send feedback to the Pipeworx team' and lists specific use cases (bug reports, feature requests, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that are about data retrieval or memory.

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 guidelines: what to include (describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/data), what not to include (end-user prompt verbatim), and a rate limit (5 per day). Lacks explicit comparison to siblings, but purpose is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). The description adds valuable behavioral traits: self-aggregating signal from CF analytics-engine, no PII, just counts, and caching policy (5min-1h depending on window). No contradictions.

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

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

The description is well-structured with a brief introductory sentence, a bullet list of use cases, and closing details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

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

The tool has low complexity (1 optional parameter with enum). Even without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values (top tools, top packs, total call volume). No missing context for correct 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 description coverage is 100% (the one parameter 'window' has a description). The description adds meaning by explaining the trade-off between short and long windows (hot right now vs. steady-state demand), surpassing 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 returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window. It specifies the verb 'returns' and the resource (Pipeworx trending data). Among 27 sibling tools, none compete directly with this functionality, so differentiation is inherent.

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 (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical tool, aligning with agent needs). It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though 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.

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 behavioral details like partition filters, semantic anchor checks, and response structure, which align with annotations and provide 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 verbose and dense, mixing multiple concepts into a single paragraph. While front-loaded with the requirement, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for 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?

Given the complexity (two modes, multiple checks, no output schema), the description covers the response structure, partition filter, and semantic anchor. It is mostly complete, though exact return format types could be more precise.

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 beyond schema—explaining the purpose of each parameter, providing concrete examples, and detailing mode behavior. This adds value beyond the schema alone.

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 finds arbitrage opportunities via monotonicity violations and partition checks, with two modes (event and topic). It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like polymarket_edges.

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

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

The description explicitly requires one of event or topic, explains when to use each mode with examples, and warns against calling with no args. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by detailing caching (1h KV-level), diagnostic outputs, edge calculation methods, slippage assumptions, and filter knobs. It adds rich behavioral context without contradicting 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 long but well-structured with sections and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value for the complex functionality. Could be slightly more concise, but structure helps readability.

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

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

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description thoroughly explains response structure (by_segment, diagnostics, fed note) and covers all relevant aspects. It is highly complete for an agent to understand the tool's output and behavior.

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 individual parameter descriptions, and the tool-level description adds extra context for parameter usage (e.g., explaining tradeable-edge knobs, partition leg Kelly filtering). This enhances meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 edges where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, and gives a specific use case ('what should I bet on today'). It distinguishes itself from similar tools by detailing its unique model families and segments, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 (discover opportunities without paging) and provides detailed parameter guidance, but does not directly compare with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or specify when not to use this tool.

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

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by detailing response fields, compatibility warnings, temporal alignment, and skipped leg counters. It warns that most pre-mapped topics are not tradeable, adding significant 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?

The description is dense and well-structured, with two modes clearly explained and safety fields enumerated. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the response format and edge cases. It covers all necessary details for an agent to understand the tool's behavior 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the override behavior between topic and explicit parameters, and lists the exact topic shortcuts, enhancing semantic 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 computes the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same question. It distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage (intra-venue) and bet_research by focusing on inter-venue comparisons.

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 two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit pairing) and provides guidance on when to expect compatibility warnings. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes the core behavior (retrieval/listing) and persistence across sessions ('in previous sessions'), but lacks details about error handling (e.g., what happens if key doesn't exist), return format, or any limitations like size constraints or access controls. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality with clear alternatives. The second sentence adds important context about session persistence without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieval with optional listing), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and usage well, but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or any behavioral constraints. For a memory retrieval tool that might return structured data, more detail about output would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'key' is already documented in the schema. The description adds valuable semantic context by explaining the dual behavior: 'Retrieve a previously stored memory by key, or list all stored memories (omit key).' This clarifies that omitting the parameter triggers a different operation, which isn't obvious from the schema alone. With only one optional parameter, this provides good compensation.

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 with specific verbs ('retrieve', 'list') and resources ('previously stored memory', 'all stored memories'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' (store) and 'forget' (delete) by focusing on retrieval operations. The phrase 'context you saved earlier' further clarifies the relationship with storage 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Retrieve a previously stored memory by key, or list all stored memories (omit key).' It clearly defines the two usage modes and specifies the condition for switching between them. The context 'Use this to retrieve context you saved earlier' reinforces its role versus storage tools like 'remember'.

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 states mark_read:true flags returned events as read, implying a state mutation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint:true. This contradiction undermines transparency. No additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide is offered, and the description conflicts with annotations.

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

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

The description is concise with four sentences covering key aspects: resource, returned fields, filters, mark_read behavior, and alternative access. It is front-loaded but slightly dense; minor restructuring could improve readability.

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

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

For a filtered-list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and key behaviors (mark_read, polling). All parameters are covered by the schema, and the description adds context about the feed and alternative access. Lack of detail on unread_only is mitigated 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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline parameter descriptions. The description adds value by giving examples (e.g., type 'sec_8k') and explaining the purpose of mark_read in context, enhancing the semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool pulls fired events from the subscription feed and returns the most recent alerts with specific fields (source, citation_uri, raw payload). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a specific feed and including unique features like mark_read.

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: filtering by type and/or since, setting mark_read, and mentions that polling works fine. It also points to an alternative GET endpoint for scripts and dashboards, but does not explicitly compare to other sibling tools like get_events or list_subscriptions.

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

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: details fan-out to multiple sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews fallback, USPTO), explains fallback behavior and soft-failure for patents, describes accepted `since` formats, and returns structure (grouped changes, total_changes, citation URIs). 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 dense with information and front-loads purpose with common query phrases. Each sentence serves a purpose, but it is slightly verbose (multiple sentences covering sources, fallback, parameters, and alternatives). Could be slightly more compact, but the structure is logical.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return structure (changes grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs) and covers all relevant aspects: parameter behavior, source details, fallback logic, and alternative tool. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds value by providing examples for `since` ('7d', '30d', '1y', ISO date), recommending typical monitoring values, and clarifying that `value` can be ticker or CIK. Also notes that `type` only supports 'company'.

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

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

The description clearly defines the tool's purpose: returning a change feed for a company covering SEC filings, news, and patents within a time window. It provides example user queries ('What's new with X') and distinguishes itself from the sibling `entity_profile` tool, which returns a static 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 states when to use the tool (for 'what's new' queries with a time window) and when not to ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile... regardless of window'). Provides context on typical monitoring usage ('Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring').

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it explains persistence differences (authenticated users get persistent memory, anonymous sessions last 24 hours) and the cross-tool context capability. However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like storage size or rate limits.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second adds crucial behavioral context about persistence. Zero waste 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (storage with persistence nuances), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and key behavioral traits, but lacks details on return values or error conditions, which would be helpful since there's no output 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 documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('Store a key-value pair') and resource ('in your session memory'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'recall' (retrieve) and 'forget' (remove). It specifies the purpose is for saving intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool 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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (to save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage vs. 'recall' for retrieval, but lacks explicit exclusions or named 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses output fields (ticker, CIK, name, resource URIs) and input types, but does not mention error handling or ambiguous matches, leaving some gaps.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no extraneous words. Each sentence adds essential information efficiently.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers input formats, output fields, and the benefit (replaces multiple calls). Minor omission is lack of error handling details, but overall sufficient for agent decision-making.

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 with 100% description coverage. The description adds value by giving concrete examples (AAPL, 0000320193, Apple) and explaining the three acceptable forms for the value parameter, going beyond the schema's enums and descriptions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool resolves entities to canonical IDs across Pipeworx data sources, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx or get_events by focusing on entity ID 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 mentions it replaces 2–3 lookup calls, implying efficiency gains. It clearly specifies input formats (ticker, CIK, name) and notes that v1 only supports company type, providing clear context for 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, destructiveHint, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it probes each entity via ai_visibility_check and returns ranked results with score, confidence, and signal density, providing full transparency beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is concise: two sentences plus a contextual sentence and a return description. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides all necessary information without redundancy.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description clearly explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). It includes the use case and relationship to sibling tools. All parameters are documented in schema, and the description ties them together 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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters described. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it notes the first entity is treated as the subject. However, this does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema, 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 explicitly states the tool compares AI visibility across multiple entities, uses ai_visibility_check, ranks results, and returns scores. It clearly distinguishes from sibling ai_visibility_check (single entity) and compare_entities (generic comparison).

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

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

The description provides a clear use case: competitive AI-marketing audits to see if Claude knows about the brand vs competitors. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient. Alternatives like ai_visibility_check are implied for single entity checks.

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, openWorldHint. Description adds behavioral context: composite fan-out, partial failure graceful degradation, 5-30s delay for new versions, and sources_failed field. This exceeds what annotations provide, but could mention rate limits or quotas.

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 front-loaded with a strong first sentence summarizing the composite check. It is fairly concise given the complexity, though slightly long. Every sentence adds value.

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

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

No output schema, but description details the return format: summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions, and sources_failed for partial failures. This is sufficient for a composite tool, though more detail on the summary block structure would be helpful.

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 minor value: mentions scoped packages accepted and version defaults to latest. This does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema, so baseline 3.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool's composite purpose: checking npm packages via deps.dev and bundlephobia. It specifies the verb 'scan' and resource 'dependency', and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning NPM-only vs. other ecosystems via deps.dev:version.

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 an agent asks about safety/popularity/size/cost of an npm package. Also notes NPM-only in v1 and alternatives for other ecosystems, providing clear guidance.

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

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

Discloses embedding model (BGE-base-en), chunking (500-char overlapping windows), similarity metric (cosine), and input cap (200K chars with truncation flag). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint etc., but description adds essential behavioral details.

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

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

Concise paragraph with front-loaded key action, efficient use of every sentence, no redundancy, and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return format (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores) and covers edge cases (truncation). Complete for a search-inside 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% already providing descriptions, but the description enriches with examples for query (e.g., 'supply-chain risk') and clarifies that text is the document to search inside, 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 clearly states 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with concrete examples (SEC 10-K, article, tool result) and distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded by noting they pair together.

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

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

Explicitly says 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context' and provides alternative usage with ask_pipeworx_grounded, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to.

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 non-read-only, open world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context: returns subscription ID, requires OAuth, details delivery channel behaviors and constraints, and notes feed is always on. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, requirements, types, delivery). It is efficient but slightly lengthy due to inline examples and detail. Every sentence adds value, so minor conciseness loss is acceptable.

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

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

Given no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what is created, what is returned, requirements, types, parameters, delivery options, and constraints. It references sibling tools and provides sufficient completeness 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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning: for each type, it provides concrete examples of params (e.g., sec_8k with ticker and items, polymarket_edge with topic), and for delivery it details email validation, SMS verification, and webhook signing and auto-disable behavior.

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 specifies the verb 'Create' and the resource 'subscription', and distinguishes from siblings 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 provides explicit guidance: requires a Pipeworx OAuth account, lists supported types with examples, mentions delivery channels with constraints (phone verification, 10/day SMS cap, webhook auto-disable after 10 failures), and references alternative alert retrieval methods (feed pull, recent_alerts).

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 useful behavioral context (onboarding entry point, returns examples with tool shapes, behavior with/without arguments), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loading typical user queries and using a dash to separate summary from details. It is reasonably concise for the information conveyed, though slightly verbose in listing categories.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context: when to use, what it returns, and how to refine. It is complete for the onboarding purpose.

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% (one optional string parameter). The description adds meaning by listing valid topic values (finance, pharma, etc.) and explaining the effect of omitting the parameter, which enhances 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 returns category-bucketed example questions for onboarding, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning itself as the initial entry point for 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly list exclusions, but the sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools imply 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?

Discloses that the row is deactivated (not deleted) and historical events remain via recent_alerts, adding value beyond annotations which already indicate non-destructive and idempotent.

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

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, no wasted words.

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

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

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description provides complete context: purpose, ownership, and behavioral details.

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 parameter 'id' with its description. Tool description adds no extra semantics beyond that.

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', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'subscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'.

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

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

Explicitly mentions ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions'), guiding usage. No explicit alternatives but sibling list provides context.

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 discloses return values (verdict types, structured form, citation, percent delta) and explains that it replaces multiple sequential calls. Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds context about the citation format and extracted data, but lacks details on error handling or rate limits.

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—two sentences plus a list—yet covers purpose, use case, domain, method, and output format. Every sentence adds value; no extraneous 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 parameter and no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It defines input constraints (natural language financial claims), output structure (verdict types with citation), and the replacement of multiple calls, making it self-contained for the agent.

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% (only one parameter 'claim' with description). The tool description adds value by providing natural-language examples and clarifying the domain (company-financial claims), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's generic 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: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific examples of query phrases. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR+XBRL, which is a niche not covered by other tools like ask_pipeworx or compare_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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and gives example query formats. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for non-financial claims), though the domain restriction is implied by the supporting sources mentioned.

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