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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, which the description supports. The description adds that the tool returns example questions with exact tool+argument shapes from a live catalog, giving the agent expectations about the response's nature without contradicting the 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 longer than average but each segment serves a purpose: example utterances for pattern matching, output expectations, and parameter usage. It is reasonably front-loaded with the user intents at the start, though a tighter summary sentence could come earlier.

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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: when to use, what it returns, how to specialize the input, and its role in onboarding. It even mentions the relationship to other meta-tools, making it fully self-contained 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 description coverage is 100% because the only parameter `topic` has a detailed description in the schema. The description repeats this info with examples but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the onboarding entry point for discovering what to ask Pipeworx, with a specific verb ('Returns category-bucketed example questions') and a defined output. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming meta-tools it teaches (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities), which helps the agent differentiate it from direct Q&A 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 explicitly instructs 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you,' providing clear when-to-use context. It also explains how to invoke with or without the `topic` parameter, but does not explicitly state exclusions or compare with similar discovery tools like discover_tools.

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