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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail about returning category-bucketed examples with exact tool and argument shapes, and that results are drawn from the live catalog of thousands of tools. This 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 a single paragraph that front-loads user intent examples before diving into return details and usage. It contains some redundancy in the opening question synonyms but remains compact and well-organized for an onboarding 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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, return contents, parameter usage, and when to invoke. It provides enough context for an agent to select and use the tool without confusion.

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 documents the optional `topic` parameter with allowed values. The description adds practical examples ('finance', 'pharma', 'betting') and clarifies behavior when omitted, reinforcing the schema's coverage. This is helpful beyond the raw 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 identifies the tool as an 'onboarding entry point' that returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool and argument shapes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning itself as the first tool to use when the agent doesn't know what Pipeworx can do.

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

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

The description gives explicit usage context: 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools.' It also explains when to omit or pass the topic parameter. It does not mention alternatives or 'when not to use,' but the guidance is clear.

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