Paypal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that Pipeworx selects the best tool and fills arguments, implying autonomous decision-making. However, it does not mention limitations, potential errors, or what happens if no tool can answer. The description is transparent but could be more detailed.

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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The examples add helpful context without being verbose. A slight improvement would be to separate examples more clearly.

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 (it acts as a meta-tool), the description is reasonably complete. It explains its role and provides examples. However, without an output schema, it could mention the format of the answer or potential outcomes (e.g., success, error). The description leaves some uncertainty about what the agent should expect.

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 has one parameter 'question' with 100% description coverage. The description adds value by clarifying that the question should be in natural language and providing examples of valid queries, going 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: to answer natural language questions using the best available data source. It differentiates itself from siblings by emphasizing its role as a 'concierge' that selects the right tool and fills arguments, contrasting with specific tools like paypal_get_invoice. However, it could more explicitly name sibling tools it might invoke.

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 usage guidance: ask in plain English without needing to browse tools or learn schemas. It gives three examples illustrating suitable queries. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools suggests specialized tools exist for specific tasks.

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 present, so description carries full burden. It discloses returned data and resource URIs, but does not cover error handling, rate limits, or auth requirements. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 four sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose: action, type details, return info, efficiency claim.

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?

Reasonably complete for a tool with two parameters and no output schema. Explains what data is returned and mentions URIs. Could add info on error handling or idempotency, but not critical.

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 already cover both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by listing specific fields returned for each type and providing concrete examples for the values parameter.

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 compares 2–5 entities side by side, specifies two entity types with distinct data fields, and highlights efficiency gains over sequential calls. This distinguishes it well from sibling 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?

Explicitly states when to use it (for comparing entities) and implies efficiency benefits. Does not mention when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives, but 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's behavior (returns relevant tools with names and descriptions) but does not mention potential limitations like rate limits, token costs, or whether the search is based on embeddings or keyword matching.

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 that are front-loaded with the core action and key usage directive. 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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention the return format (e.g., list of tool names and descriptions), but that is already implied.

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 that the 'query' parameter should be a natural language description, and the 'limit' parameter has a default and max value, which goes 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 purpose: to search the Pipeworx tool catalog by describing a need, and it distinguishes itself by directing the agent to call it first when there are 500+ tools available.

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 tells when to use this tool ('call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available'), providing clear guidance on 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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the returned data types and citation URIs, and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or discuss rate limits or authentication needs.

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 (three sentences) with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary repetition or jargon.

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 lacking an output schema, the description explains the return format (pipeworx:// citation URIs). It covers all parameters, constraints, and alternatives, making the tool fully understandable.

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. The description adds significant meaning by explaining that only 'company' is currently supported and that 'value' can be a ticker or CIK, and clarifies that names are not accepted.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: providing a full profile of an entity across multiple Pipeworx packs. It lists data sources (SEC filings, XBRL, USPTO patents, GDELT news, GLEIF LEI) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool usa_recipient_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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool (for company profiles) and when not to use it (for federal contracts, use usa_recipient_profile instead). It also advises using resolve_entity for name-based queries.

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 provided, so description must carry the burden. It clearly indicates the tool is destructive (deletes data), which is essential behavioral info. However, it does not disclose what happens if the key doesn't exist, whether deletion is irreversible, or any authorization requirements.

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?

Single sentence, no waste. Could be more structured but achieves clarity in minimal space.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context about side effects, error handling, or prerequisites. It covers the basic purpose but leaves some 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% and the description of the 'key' parameter in the schema already explains it. The tool description does not add new semantics beyond 'by key', but given high coverage, 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 'Delete a stored memory by key' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (memory). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'recall' and 'remember' by specifying 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or scenarios where deletion is appropriate. The description is minimal.

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?

Description indicates it is a read operation (get details). Annotations are empty, so description carries burden. It doesn't mention any side effects, authentication requirements beyond schema, 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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded with key action. No unnecessary 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 tool is simple (get by ID), description is adequate. No output schema, but return type is implied by purpose. Could mention that invoice_id format is an example.

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 schema already documents parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what 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?

Description states verb 'get details' and resource 'PayPal invoice by its ID', which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like paypal_get_order or paypal_list_invoices.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include paypal_get_order (for orders) and paypal_list_invoices (for listing), but description does not clarify.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately states it's a read operation ('Get details'), but lacks details like auth requirements (client ID/secret are in schema), rate limits, or return format.

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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the key action. No wasted words, but could be slightly improved by adding minimal context.

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 operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., sandbox vs live) or response structure.

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 parameters are fully documented in schema. Description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('PayPal order by its ID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like paypal_get_invoice or paypal_list_invoices.

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 when to use (when needing order details) but provides no explicit when-not or alternatives guidance. Sibling tools like paypal_list_transactions or paypal_list_disputes exist but are not mentioned.

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 must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'list disputes' without mentioning read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the schema. The tool requires credentials but the description doesn't clarify that listing disputes is a read operation.

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 concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No unnecessary words, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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 lists disputes (which can involve pagination, filtering, statuses), the description is too sparse. It does not mention output format, sorting, filtering by date/status, or any additional parameters beyond auth. Without an output schema, the description should cover what the response contains.

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 does not add meaning beyond the schema; it omits explaining that _sandbox, _clientId, _clientSecret are authentication parameters. However, the schema descriptions are self-sufficient, so no additional value is needed.

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 disputes (chargebacks and claims) from PayPal, with specific verb 'list' and resource 'disputes'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like paypal_list_invoices and paypal_list_transactions by focusing on disputes, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like paypal_list_transactions or paypal_list_invoices. It does not mention prerequisites, filtering options, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-making 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?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It reveals the tool is a read operation (list) and mentions pagination indirectly via 'page' and 'page_size' parameters, but it does not disclose rate limits, authentication flows, or any side effects. The description adds some value beyond the schema by summarizing the return fields.

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 clearly stating purpose and return data. It is front-loaded with the primary action. No superfluous 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 list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the high-level return data but does not explain pagination behavior, default sorting, or how to handle errors. It is adequate but could be more complete with additional behavioral notes.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No parameters are explained further in the 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 it lists invoices from PayPal and specifies what data is returned (invoice numbers, amounts, statuses). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like paypal_get_invoice and paypal_list_transactions, though it could be more precise about the scope (e.g., all invoices or filtered).

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 this is the tool for listing invoices, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like paypal_list_transactions. It also lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., client credentials are required, as per schema).

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 are empty, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions returning transaction details but does not disclose authentication requirements (though _clientId and _clientSecret hint at it), rate limits, pagination, or whether the operation is read-only. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It is efficient 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and empty annotations. The description provides basic purpose and return fields but lacks details on output structure, error handling, or usage context. It is minimally complete but could be more 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 descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, 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 PayPal transactions within a date range and specifies the returned fields (amount, status, payer info). It is specific about the resource (transactions) and action (list), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like paypal_list_invoices or paypal_list_disputes.

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 when to use the tool (listing transactions in a date range) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that paypal_list_invoices might be more appropriate for invoices.

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 rate limit (5 messages per identifier per day) and free usage. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden; it is transparent about constraints but could mention if any data is stored or actions taken.

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: three sentences cover purpose, usage guidelines, and constraints. No wasted words, and key information is 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?

Sufficient for a simple feedback tool with nested objects and no output schema. It covers what to send and how to format, though could mention that feedback is submitted immediately or if a response is expected.

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 explains all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no extra parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema richness.

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 sends feedback to the Pipeworx team, listing specific use cases (bug reports, feature requests, missing data, praise). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_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?

Provides explicit guidance on what to include (describe what you tried in terms of Pipeworx tools/data) and what to exclude (end-user's prompt verbatim). Also mentions rate limit and free nature, giving clear context for 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the read operation well but does not mention potential side effects, persistence guarantees, or performance implications. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 key behavior. Every word adds value, no 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 a simple interface (1 optional param, no output schema). The description covers the two usage modes and mentions persistence across sessions. A bit more detail on the return format could be useful, but it's complete enough 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds the nuance that omitting the key lists all memories, which aligns with the schema's optionality. 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's action: retrieve a memory by key, or list all memories when key is omitted. It distinguishes itself from 'remember' (store) and 'forget' (delete) through context and sibling tool names.

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 it (retrieve context saved earlier) and implies when not to (omit key for listing). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear given the sibling tool names.

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 discloses parallel fan-out to multiple sources, return structure (structured changes + total_changes count + URIs), and date format. It lacks details on auth requirements or potential side effects, but for a read-only tool this is sufficient.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then covers sources, parameters, return values, and use case. Every sentence adds value with no 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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return format. It covers the main behavioral aspects of a multi-source fan-out tool, including parameter details and usage scenarios. It is complete for the complexity level.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds valuable context: examples for 'since' (ISO and relative), notes that 'type' only supports 'company', and clarifies 'value' accepts ticker or CIK. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a score above 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'What's new about an entity since a given point in time.' It specifies the entity type (company) and the three data sources fanned out to (SEC, GDELT, USPTO), distinguishing it from siblings like entity_profile 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 recommends usage for 'brief me on what happened with X' or change-monitoring workflows. It explains the 'since' parameter format. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention 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?

The description discloses persistence behavior based on authentication status, which is a key behavioral trait beyond what annotations would provide (none provided). No contradictions with annotations. It could also mention that overwriting existing keys is allowed, but the current detail is sufficient.

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 long, concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds important context about persistence. It wastes no words. Could be slightly more structured but 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 the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, use cases, and persistence behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly. The lack of output schema information is acceptable since the schema provides none and the tool likely returns a success message.

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 already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'key' and 'value'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The examples in the schema's 'key' description ('subject_property', 'target_ticker') are helpful but are part of the schema, not the 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 stores a key-value pair in session memory. It specifies the action ('store'), the resource ('key-value pair in session memory'), and the use cases ('save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'forget' and 'recall'.

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 ('save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls') and provides context on persistence ('Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions last 24 hours'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., 'recall' for retrieval, 'forget' for deletion).

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 provided, so description carries full burden. Description indicates a read operation (resolve) and lists return fields, but does not disclose safety, idempotency, error behavior, or authentication needs. Lacks behavioral context beyond purpose.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes only essential details (supported types, input examples, output). No superfluous text; 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?

For a simple lookup tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose, input, output, and efficiency gain. Missing error handling or behavioral details, but these are less critical given low complexity and no 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, giving baseline 3. Description adds value by providing concrete examples for the 'value' parameter (ticker, CIK, name) and stating the output fields, which clarifies parameter usage beyond schema 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?

Description clearly states the tool resolves an entity to canonical IDs, specifies supported type (company) and input formats (ticker, CIK, name), and notes it replaces 2–3 lookup calls. This provides specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are unrelated.

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 mentions it resolves to canonical IDs in a single call, indicating efficiency, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance. The context implied is for entity lookup, but no exclusions 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, but the description discloses the return values (verdict, extracted structured form, actual value with citation, percent delta), the data sources (SEC EDGAR + XBRL), and the scope (v1 limitation). It also notes that it replaces multiple sequential agent calls, giving insight into its behavior.

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

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

Three sentences that are well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each 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 description is comprehensive for a single-parameter tool. It covers the domain, sources, output fields, and value proposition. Could potentially mention error handling or rate limits, but overall it is complete enough 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?

The schema already describes the 'claim' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds value by providing specific examples and clarifying the expected format (e.g., 'Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion'), 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 states the tool's purpose: fact-checking natural-language claims against authoritative sources, specifically company-financial claims for US public companies. It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting its specialized role, replacing 4-6 sequential agent 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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool (for financial claims) and implies its scope (v1 supports company-financial claims for US public companies). Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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