Opendata Swiss

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing that the tool probes multiple models, returns per-model data, and that Anthropic calls require a BYO API key with direct costs to the user. This contextualizes the annotations well.

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

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

The description is three sentences long, front-loads the core action, and every clause adds value. There is no redundancy or irrelevant 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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly explains the return format (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} plus combined view). It also covers default behavior, optional key, and use cases, making it fully complete for an 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some extra context (e.g., default model name, that 'models' can be specified) but does not significantly extend beyond the schema's descriptions. Acceptable for a fully-described 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 probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and returns a visibility score. It gives specific examples of uses (brand checks, competitive monitoring) and distinguishes from sibling tools which are not similar in 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 explicitly mentions use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring) and explains default vs. paid model usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, leaving a small gap for an agent to infer.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it routes to one of 2,866 tools, fills arguments, returns structured answers with 'pipeworx://' citation URIs. No contradictions. It could further disclose external API call latency or rate limits, but overall provides meaningful extras beyond annotations.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the key directive 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH', followed by a clear list of domains and example questions. It is moderately long but every sentence adds value—no filler. The structure is logical: preference statement, supported domains, behavior explanation, and usage triggers. Minor verbosity in the list of examples could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (routing to 2,866 tools), the description covers purpose, behavioral aspects, parameter meaning, and even output format (structured answer with citations). No output schema exists, so the description compensates by describing the return format. It does not discuss error handling, latency, or credential requirements, but for a factual query tool with annotations indicating safe operations, this is mostly complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% (single parameter 'question' with description). The description enriches semantics by detailing what constitutes a good question (specific queries, domains, example phrasings). It goes beyond the schema by explaining how the question is used ('routes to the right tool, fills arguments'), effectively adding context. No parameter descriptions in the schema needed more, but the description compensates well.

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 for answering factual questions about real-world entities using structured data from verified sources, and explicitly lists domains (SEC filings, FDA drug data, etc.). It distinguishes itself from web search with the phrase 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and contrasts with sibling tools like 'search_datasets' or 'entity_profile' by being a general query interface. The specific verb-resource combination is 'routes the question to the right tool' with examples, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description strongly guides when to use: 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' and enumerates query patterns ('what is', 'look up', etc.) and specific examples. It suggests alternatives implicitly by naming sibling tools like 'search_datasets' but does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for subjective opinions or creative tasks). The guidance is clear and actionable, but could be strengthened by including 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?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint): it details safety short-circuits for low-confidence matches, status for closed markets, and liquidity notes for wide spreads. 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 lengthy but well-structured with clear sections. It front-loads purpose and usage, then provides classifiers, examples, response shapes, and safety notes. Every sentence adds value, though minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeating fan-out examples).

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 thoroughly covers input formats, behavior in edge cases (low confidence, closed markets, wide spreads), response structure (market, analysis, evidence), and safety considerations. It is complete for an agent to use 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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds practical context: for 'market' it explains accepted input formats (slug, URL, question text); for 'depth' it clarifies quick vs thorough; for 'include_raw' it advises when to use true vs false.

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, with specific verb 'research' and resource 'Polymarket bet'. It distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and validate_claim by focusing on comprehensive data gathering for a single bet.

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 ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', 'is there edge in Z') and explains the fan-out logic. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use.

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

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

Annotations already indicate safe read operation. Description adds detailed data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS for drugs), explains fixes, and mentions output format (paired data + citation URIs). 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?

Front-loaded with core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Well-structured.

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

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

No output schema, but description covers return format (paired data, citation URIs) and sorting. Adequate for tool 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 descriptions cover parameters, but description adds meaning by explaining data sources per type and giving examples. Adds 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 the action (compare), the resource (companies/drugs), and the scope (2-5 entities). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it replaces 8-15 sequential lookups.

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

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

Explicitly lists use cases like 'compare X and Y', 'X vs Y', 'which is bigger'. Provides clear context for when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior; description adds warning about no datastore and where to find download URLs, providing useful context beyond annotations.

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

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

Two sentences front-load the purpose and include usage guidance and a caution with 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 simple retrieval tool, the description adequately covers what the tool returns, how to use it, and where to find the underlying data, even without an 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?

The schema already describes the parameter as 'slug or id'; the description adds context on how to obtain the value (from search_datasets), enhancing semantic clarity.

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 retrieves full metadata for one dataset, including resources and download URLs, distinguishing it from search_datasets.

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 specifies using a dataset name or id from search_datasets, but could be more explicit about when not to use this tool (e.g., for listing datasets).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that results are 'ready to call directly, no second schema lookup needed,' which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

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

Description is slightly long but well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but overall effective.

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 fully explains what the tool returns (names, descriptions, full input schemas with examples). Lists many domains and use cases, making it complete for a discovery tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with examples and descriptions in input schema. Description mentions 'top-N' but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'limit' and 'query' parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool finds tools by describing data or task, and lists many specific domains (SEC filings, financials, FDA drugs, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a discovery tool to call first.

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 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies alternatives like direct tool calls.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it details return fields, mentions fallback mechanics (GDELT→GNews), notes the sunset of the patents API, and clarifies input constraints. 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 lengthy but every sentence earns its place by providing critical details about data sources, return structure, and limitations. Minor verbosity but overall well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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

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

The tool is complex (multiple data sources, fallbacks, known issues), and the description covers all aspects: recent filings, fundamentals, patents status, news, LEI, and input constraints. No output schema exists, so the description adequately explains all return values.

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 meaning by explaining the type parameter only supports 'company' and the value parameter accepts ticker or zero-padded CIK, explicitly noting names are not supported. This goes beyond the schema's enum and 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 retrieves comprehensive data about a US public company in one call, with a specific verb ('Get everything') and resource ('US public company'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like resolve_entity by noting name resolution is a separate step.

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 user asks 'tell me about X', etc.) and provides an alternative for name resolution ('use resolve_entity first'). Also mentions not to use for names directly, giving clear usage boundaries.

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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about clearing sensitive data and deleting memory, which aligns with the annotations. It does not contradict annotations, and adds value beyond them by specifying the nature of the deletion.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the action, usage context, and relationship to siblings, requiring no additional information.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with the 'key' parameter already described as 'Memory key to delete.' The description does not add further parameter details, so it meets the baseline of 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 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'Pair with remember and recall', making the purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use: 'when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier.' It also mentions pairing with siblings, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios, preventing a perfect score.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it fetches the page and extracts content, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like handling of dynamic content or authentication requirements, so additional context would improve 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 two sentences, with the first sentence clearly stating the action and output, and the second sentence adding process details and use cases. Every sentence earns its place; 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?

Given the tool has two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the output format (standard markdown) and where to use it (site-root/llms.txt). It could mention that the URL must be publicly accessible, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it mentions the extraction process (extracts title/description/key links) which indirectly relates to parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('llms.txt file') and clearly states the tool's purpose: to create an AI-friendly site summary. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the specific use case of generating llms.txt, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, auditing competitor visibility. It gives clear context but does not exclude use cases or mention alternatives, leaving room for improvement.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by mentioning that multilingual titles are flattened to `title_en`, which is a behavioral detail not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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

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

The description consists of two succinct sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides actionable usage guidance. It is optimally front-loaded.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary information: what it lists, how to use the output, and parameter details are in schema. 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?

The input schema has one parameter (limit) with 100% description coverage in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description explicitly states 'List thematic categories (CKAN groups / themes, e.g. health, education, energy)', providing a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_organizations and list_tags by specifying the output's use in search_datasets.

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 offers clear usage guidance by instructing to use a returned `name` as `groups:<name>` in search_datasets `fq`. While it doesn't explicitly mention when to not use it or compare alternatives, the context is sufficient for typical use cases.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by noting multilingual titles are flattened to title_en and that the returned 'name' is used in search_datasets, enriching behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

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

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second provides usage guidance. No extraneous information; 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 simplicity, the description, combined with annotations and schema, fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral notes. Agent can use it 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 a clear description of the `limit` parameter (1-1000, default 100). The tool description does not add further detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists publishing organizations and specifies types (federal offices, cantons). It distinguishes itself by hinting at usage in search_datasets, differentiating from sibling tools like list_groups and list_tags.

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: to obtain organization names for filtering in search_datasets via the `fq` parameter. Offers direct usage guidance, making it easy for the agent to select this tool over alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering key behavioral aspects. The description adds minor context (CKAN tag_list) but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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

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

Two concise sentences: first communicates action and source, second explains utility. No fluff or repetition, front-loaded with key 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?

For a simple list/search tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description paired with annotations provides sufficient context. It identifies the underlying API and use case, making it complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for limit and query. The description adds little beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists or searches keyword tags, specifies the underlying CKAN tag_list API, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_groups and list_organizations by focusing on a different resource.

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 hints at utility ('Useful for discovering facet values') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, when not to use, or any prerequisites.

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 key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it is free, rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, and does not count against the tool-call quota. It also states that the team reads digests daily and feedback affects the roadmap. No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is concise (about 100 words) and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, followed by specific when-to-use guidance, then important behavioral notes (rate limits, free). Every sentence provides useful 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers what feedback to submit, how to format it, constraints (rate limits, don't paste prompts), and the impact of the feedback. There are 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of each feedback type (e.g., 'bug = something broke or returned wrong data') and providing usage examples. However, the schema already describes the 'context' object fields clearly, so the description's extra context is helpful but not essential.

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: to provide feedback (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) to the Pipeworx team. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying when to use it (e.g., when a tool returns wrong data or a desired tool is missing) and how to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs.

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 lists the four feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise), instructs not to paste end-user prompts, and explains how to describe issues. It also mentions rate limits (5 per identifier per day) and that the tool is free and doesn't count against the tool-call quota.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: data source (CF analytics-engine), no PII, caching behavior (5min-1h), and the nature of the signal (self-aggregating). No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

The description is concise, with a single introductory sentence followed by three bullet-point use cases. Every sentence is informative and necessary. It is front-loaded with the core output, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is complete. It covers the return structure (top tools, packs, call volume), data source, caching, and privacy, leaving no critical gaps for the agent to infer.

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

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

The single parameter 'window' is already fully described in the input schema with enum values and their implications. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 tool returns 'top tools, top packs, and total call volume' over a recent window. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on aggregated trending data from AI agent usage, not individual tool details.

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 enumerates three explicit use cases (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical choice, seeing alignment) that guide when to invoke this tool. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternative tools, the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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?

Goes far beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by detailing internal logic: monotonicity checks, partition sum checks (≈1 rule), Jaccard similarity threshold (≥0.30), placeholder filtering (>20% fraction yields null signal), and response structure (opportunities array with gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning). No contradictions with annotations.

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

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

Well-structured with a clear opening sentence, then detailed explanations of modes and filters. Every sentence earns its place, though slightly lengthy for a tool description. Could be more concise but remains informative and front-loaded.

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

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

Given no output schema, description fully explains response fields (opportunities[], partition_check). Covers edge cases (placeholder filtering, low similarity pairs) and algorithmic details. Differentiates from sibling tools effectively. Provides complete guidance for an AI 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 already describes both parameters adequately (100% coverage), but description adds value by explaining the mode distinction (event vs topic), providing examples (e.g., slug or full URL for event), and implying mutual exclusivity, which clarifies intended use.

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 what the tool does: finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes two distinct modes (event and topic) with specific use cases, and contrasts with sibling tools through unique algorithmic details like Jaccard similarity and partition filters.

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 describes two modes and when to use each: event mode for a single event slug, topic mode for a seed question. Explains cross-event mode catches patterns single-event misses. Provides examples and warns about partition filter and placeholder fractions, guiding appropriate usage.

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

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by explaining caching (1h at KV level), exclusions (fed_rate bets excluded from ranking), model details (lognormal barrier, GDELT volume ratio, favorite-longshot bias correction), and slippage handling. Annotations only indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, which the description reinforces without contradiction.

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

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

The description is dense but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then detailing segments and knobs. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. The length is warranted given the 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 high complexity (9 parameters, 3 segments, multiple model families, tradeable-edge filters, caching rules, output structure), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the output fields (edge_pp_net, kelly_fraction, etc.) and the three response segments under by_segment, compensating for the lack of an 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?

All 9 parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context: e.g., 'edge_pp_net is after slippage', 'kelly_fraction_half capped at 0.25', and explains how knobs like min_partition_leg_kelly apply to per-leg Kelly inside partitions. This extra context justifies a 4.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool scans Polymarket markets for opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, and details three distinct model-driven segments. It differentiates from siblings via specific terminology like 'partition_overround' and 'concentrated_longshot', which are unique to this tool.

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 the use case: 'what should I bet on today' and that it avoids paging hundreds of markets. It also mentions tradeable-edge knobs for filtering. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage or bet_research, so while clear, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use 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?

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: explains the delta as an arb signal, describes the return format (leg-by-leg prices and spread in percentage points), and notes that explicit parameters override topic mappings. 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?

Description is well-structured with a clear flow: purpose, rationale, modes, return format. It is concise for the amount of information conveyed, though slightly verbose with parenthetical enumerations. Every sentence contributes 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?

Given the complexity (cross-venue, two modes, three parameters, no output schema), the description covers return values, parameter interactions, and examples. It lacks an explicit output example or edge-case handling, but overall provides sufficient context for effective use.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description significantly enhances understanding by explaining the two modes, how parameters interact (topic vs explicit override), and providing examples (e.g., fed, btc). This adds substantial 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?

Description explicitly states it computes cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket, explains the reason for spread existence, and outlines two distinct usage modes. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage (single-venue) and polymarket_edges (single-venue 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?

Description provides clear context on when to use the tool and outlines two modes (topic shortcuts or explicit tickers). It does not explicitly say when not to use, but the sibling list implies alternatives for single-venue analysis. Slight lack of explicit 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 idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it's a retrieval operation, scoped to identifier, and non-destructive. No contradictions; fully consistent with annotations.

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

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

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no fluff. Each sentence adds value: function, usage examples, scoping, and sibling pairing.

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?

Description covers what, when, and how to use. It lacks detail on return format (e.g., value type or list structure), but for a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, it is fairly complete. Still, a minor gap.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter description 'Memory key to retrieve (omit to list all keys)'. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level information 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?

Description clearly states two purposes: retrieve a specific value by key or list all keys when key is omitted. It specifies the kind of data (user's target ticker, address, research notes) and distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' and 'forget'.

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 when to use: to look up context stored earlier without re-deriving. Mentions scoping (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, or account ID) and pairs with remember/forget for saving/deleting, 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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description discloses important behavioral traits: parallel execution across SEC, GDELT/GNews, and USPTO, fallback logic for GNews, and potential soft-fail for USPTO due to API sunset. 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 relatively long but every sentence earns its place by adding essential context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and gradually builds detail. Minor deductions for verbosity, but justified given tool 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 full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: return format (structured changes, total_changes, citation URIs), edge cases (USPTO sunset), and source behavior. No gaps identified.

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 description adds significant meaning: it explains the 'since' parameter accepts ISO dates or relative shorthand, provides typical usage ('30d'), and clarifies that 'value' can be ticker or CIK. This enriches the schema definitions.

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 what the tool does: retrieve recent changes for a company in a time window. It gives specific use cases ('what's happening with X') and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool entity_profile, making its purpose unambiguous.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile'). It also details the parallel fan-out to multiple sources and fallback behavior, giving clear context for agent decision-making.

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 details scoping ('by your identifier'), persistence differences ('Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions retain memory for 24 hours'), and the tool is idempotent as per annotations. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). Adds behavioral context beyond annotations.

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

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

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, usage scenario, and behavioral details. Front-loaded with the primary action. 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 simple write tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, scoping, persistence, and pairing with siblings. Completely adequate.

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 for key and value. The description reinforces naming conventions for key ('e.g., subject_property...') and clarifies value as 'any text'. Adds marginal 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 the verb 'save' and resource 'data', and provides concrete examples like 'resolved ticker, target address, user preference'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'recall' and 'forget' by explicitly mentioning them for retrieval and deletion.

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 you discover something worth carrying forward' and provides guidance on when to use alternatives: 'Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete.' This gives clear context for when to invoke this tool vs siblings.

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 true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that it cascades through several lookup endpoints and provides citation URIs, giving context beyond what annotations provide.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with core purpose, well-structured with usage advice and detailed type breakdowns. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary length.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned for each entity type, including identifiers and citation URIs. It covers the main use cases comprehensively.

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 detailed descriptions. The description adds examples, auto-disambiguation for company, and explains return format for each type, adding significant 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 resolves user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers for other tools. It specifies supported types (company, drug) and what each returns, differentiating it from sibling tools by explaining it replaces 2-3 manual 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?

The description says 'Use FIRST when you have a name but need an ID.' It also mentions it replaces manual lookups. However, it could be more explicit about when not to use it or suggest specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds details: it probes each entity, ranks, and surfaces most/least recognized, and returns score, confidence, signal density. 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: one explaining function, one giving use case. Every sentence is informative with no unnecessary detail. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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

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

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return format (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). It does not detail the models parameter or apiKey usage, but the schema covers those. Overall adequate 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning: first entity is treated as subject, internal use of ai_visibility_check, and output format. This goes beyond the schema's parameter 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 compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, probing each with ai_visibility_check and ranking results. This distinguishes it from sibling ai_visibility_check (single entity) and 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 gives an explicit use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') and an example question. It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about the source and multilingual handling but does not provide additional behavioral details 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no waste. Every word 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?

Given good annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers essential aspects. Could briefly mention that results include metadata fields, but current detail is sufficient for a search tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters, focusing instead on output behavior. Baseline score is appropriate as 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 tool searches the opendata.swiss catalogue and returns Swiss datasets. It mentions multilingual aspects and English-preferred fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dataset_details or list_organizations.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies its purpose as a search tool, but lacks exclusions or comparisons to siblings like dataset_details for specific datasets.

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 include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds details beyond annotations: explains the returned verdict types, citation, and percent delta, providing transparency about behavior without contradiction.

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

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

The description is three sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and details on scope/output. It is front-loaded, concise, and 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?

The tool is complex (fact-checking with specific domain), but the description covers purpose, usage, scope, and output format. Even without an output schema, the description explains return values adequately.

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

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

Schema has 100% coverage with a description for 'claim'. The description adds examples and clarifies that it is a natural-language claim, providing more context than 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's purpose: 'Fact-check, verify, validate, or confirm/refute a natural-language factual claim or statement against authoritative sources.' It uses specific verbs and resource 'natural-language claim,' and distinguishes from siblings by noting it replaces 4-6 sequential calls.

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

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

The description explicitly says 'Use when an agent needs to check whether something a user said is true...' and provides example triggers. It also specifies the domain limitation: 'v1 supports company-financial claims,' guiding when not to use.

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