Plos

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds key behaviors: returns per-model scores, default model is free, Anthropic requires BYO key, and you pay Anthropic directly. 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?

Concise single paragraph of 4 sentences, front-loaded with main action. No wasted words; each sentence adds critical information: action, defaults, return format, use cases.

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 sufficiently explains return format (per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + combined view). Could mention error handling or rate limits, but not critical for this read-only 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 covers all 4 parameters (100% coverage). Description adds meaning: default model is Workers AI, _apiKey is only needed for Anthropic, entity can be brand/product/person/topic. Provides clarifications 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 it probes LLMs for brand visibility and scores 0-100 per model. Differentiates from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on any entity, not just competitors.

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

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

Description lists use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch checks, competitive monitoring) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use. Implied usage is clear but lacks 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 provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, data freshness), thus minimally adds 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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and includes key details (DOI example, returned fields). No extraneous 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?

With output schema present (not shown but indicated), description does not need to detail return values. Tool is simple with one parameter, and description covers purpose, parameter format, and expected output sufficiently.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% (one required 'doi' parameter). Description provides an example DOI format (e.g., '10.1371/journal.pone.0153207') and clarifies it's a DOI, adding concrete usage guidance 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 'Fetch a single PLOS article record by DOI' and lists returned fields (title, authors, publication date, journal, abstract), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search.

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?

Implicitly suggests use when DOI is known and article details are needed, but no explicit when-not or alternative tools are mentioned, despite sibling tools like search and search_authored_by existing.

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 that it returns structured answers with stable pipeworx:// citation URIs, fills arguments, routes to the right tool, and is a single fast call. No contradictions found.

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 front-loaded with the key directive 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH'. Every sentence serves a purpose: examples, alternative tools, usage notes. Could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured and informative.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, 33 siblings), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's role, when to use it, how it differs from alternatives, provides concrete examples, and clarifies its relationship to other tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research.

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 6 parameters all aliases for 'question'. The description provides example questions and describes the input as natural language, which adds slight value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 plus 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 it routes questions to 4,819 tools across 1,259 verified sources for authoritative structured data with citations. It lists specific domains (SEC filings, FDA, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research by providing explicit guidance on when to use each.

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 'PREFER OVER WEB SEARCH' directive, lists when to use (e.g., factual questions) and when to step up (e.g., for hallucination-resistant answers use ask_pipeworx_grounded, for broad questions use deep_research). Also notes it works on every tier and is the default entry point.

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

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

Annotations already provide safety hints (readOnlyHint, etc.), and the description adds behavioral context: extraction only from tool result, explicit refusal reasons, and routing logic. No 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?

Front-loaded with key purpose, then details return format and use cases. Slightly long but every sentence adds value.

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

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

No output schema, but the description fully documents the return format including refusal reasons. Could mention error/rate limits, but generally comprehensive for a routing 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 as aliases for 'question'. The description adds little beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool is a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, distinguishing it from sibling ask_pipeworx by noting its extra cost and use case for quoting/citing/acting on answers.

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 (high-stakes, fact-critical) and when not to use (prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups), and notes the extra LLM call cost.

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, idempotentHint, and low destructiveness. The description adds extensive behavioral details: safety mechanisms (low-confidence short-circuits, closed market handling), resolution-rule risk, parent event extractor, news fallback fields. It goes well 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 comprehensive but verbose. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides extensive detail in paragraphs. While no sentence is wasted, it could be more structured with bullet points or sections for better readability.

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

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

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains response shape (market, analysis, evidence fields), edge cases (low-confidence matches, closed markets, wide spreads), and resolution-rule risk. It covers all necessary context for correct usage.

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 three parameters described. The description enriches meaning: depth enum explained with examples, market parameter types clarified, and include_raw with size implications. Adds substantial 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's purpose: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It specifies input types (slug, URL, question text) and output (evidence packet + comparison). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like polymarket_edges or polymarket_arbitrage.

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 usage contexts: 'Use for "should I bet on X", "what does the data say about Y", or "is there edge in Z".' Provides category-specific fan-out examples. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: it explains data sources (SEC EDGAR for companies, FAERS for drugs), handles off-calendar fiscal years, sorts by primary metric, and returns citation URIs. 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 front-loaded with example queries, then explains core functionality, data sources, and return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, and behavioral details in a compact form.

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 (two entity types, parallel execution, citation URIs), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what data each type fetches, number of entities supported, sorting behavior, and return format. No output schema exists, but the description appropriately mentions paired data and citations, making it complete 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains that 'type' determines which data is retrieved (e.g., 'company' pulls revenue, net income; 'drug' pulls adverse-event counts), and provides example values for 'values' parameter (tickers for companies, drug names). This goes well beyond the schema's basic enum and array 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 starts with clear example queries and explicitly states it provides side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs in one parallel call, differentiating it from sequential lookups. It specifies the data pulled for each type (financial metrics for companies, adverse-event counts for drugs), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over sequential single-pack lookups when comparing entities,' giving clear guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It covers both company and drug comparisons, leaving no ambiguity about appropriate use cases.

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

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

Description adds significant context beyond readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint: account requirement, paid plan for 'thorough', 15-60s latency, returns gaps[] when data missing. 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 critical info upfront (account requirement, alternative). Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose for a summary. Efficient for 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 high complexity (1259 sources, 4819 tools, parallel execution) and no output schema, the description fully explains return format (findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, citation, gaps[]) and behavior. 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 descriptions, but the description adds extra meaning: depth values mapped to facet counts (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8), and clarifies question can be broad/multi-part.

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 performs 'grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1259 STRUCTURED data sources' and explains decomposition and parallel tool routing. It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx by specifying scope and use case.

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 (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when not (breaking news, single lookup). Directs to alternatives ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx for other scenarios.

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, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: returns top-N relevant tools with full input schemas and curated examples, each ready to call directly without a second lookup. 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 and well-structured: opens with a clear statement of purpose, followed by a list of example domains, then a summary of return values and usage advice. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

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

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned (names, descriptions, schemas with examples) and assures readiness for direct invocation. All 6 parameters (mainly aliases) are covered. The description is fully complete for this tool's context.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with aliases documented. The description reinforces the primary 'query' parameter and provides concrete examples like 'look up FDA drug approvals' and 'analyze housing market trends', adding practical semantics beyond the schema's formal 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's purpose: 'Find tools by describing the data or task.' It lists numerous example domains and explicitly distinguishes itself by advising to call this tool FIRST when exploring options, differentiating it from sibling tools that serve specific tasks.

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

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when you need to browse, search, look up, or discover what tools exist' and 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set (not just one answer).' This effectively tells when and how to use it relative to 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. The description adds valuable behavioral details: fanning out across multiple sources, returning specific fields (cik, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals sorted, patents sunset note, GDELT→GNews fallback, LEI). No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is a single paragraph that is dense with information, front-loaded with example queries. It could benefit from more structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) but remains clear and concise without unnecessary verbosity.

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 explains the return values, including multiple data sources, edge cases (patents sunset, fallback), and unsupported inputs. It covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool 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% and the description supplements the schema by explaining that 'type' only supports 'company', and 'value' must be a ticker or zero-padded CIK, with examples like 'AAPL' and '0000320193'. It clarifies that names are not supported.

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 that the tool produces a full cross-source profile of a US public company, with concrete examples like 'Tell me about X' and 'research Acme'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as resolve_entity by noting that names are not supported.

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view' and advises using resolve_entity first if only a name is available. This provides clear when-to-use and 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 declare destructiveHint=true, which the description reinforces by saying 'Delete'. The description adds context about clearing sensitive data, but does not significantly extend beyond what annotations already 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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by usage guidance. 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the purpose and usage context.

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

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

The schema covers 100% of parameters, with a description 'Memory key to delete'. The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Delete a previously stored memory by key', specifying the verb (delete) and resource (memory by key). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remember' 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 explicitly says 'Use when context is stale, the task is done, or you want to clear sensitive data the agent saved earlier. Pair with remember and recall.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and 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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits a standard markdown format, which is useful 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 extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the use cases are listed efficiently. 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?

Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how it works, and when to use. It could mention the exact output format (markdown) more explicitly, but it's 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% for both parameters. The description does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., default values are already in schema). 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 starts with a specific verb 'Generate' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'production-ready llms.txt file for any URL'. It elaborates on its purpose for AI crawlers and provides concrete use cases, making it distinct from siblings like 'ai_visibility_check'.

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 three useful scenarios: getting a client's site indexed, drafting for own project, or auditing a competitor. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. Description adds return fields but no additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination).

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: first states action and returns, second gives usage guidance. No superfluous content.

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?

Simple tool with one optional param and no output schema. Description lists return fields and provides usage context. Complete given low complexity.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter description for 'include_inactive'. Description does not add new meaning 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 states 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource, and lists return fields. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'subscribe' and 'unsubscribe' by focusing on listing.

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: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel'. It does not state when not to use, but 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?

Discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day) and that it's free and doesn't count against tool-call quota. Annotations don't convey these details. However, it doesn't describe the submission process or immediate response, which would be helpful.

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, well-structured paragraph front-loading purpose, then usage, then constraints. Every sentence adds value; 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what happens (digests read daily, influences roadmap) and covers all relevant aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter behavior, and constraints (rate limit, quota).

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 adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the enum categories in detail, clarifies the context object's purpose, and sets message length expectations (2000 chars max).

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

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

The description explicitly states the tool collects feedback on bugs, features, data gaps, or praise. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all query/investigation tools, by focusing on reporting issues to the Pipeworx team.

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

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each feedback type (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and what not to do (don't paste end-user prompts). Also mentions rate limits and quota-free usage, giving clear usage 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?

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: self-aggregating, derived from CF analytics engine, no PII included, cached 5min-1h. Annotations already declare safe read and idempotent, so description complements well 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?

Description is well-structured with clear front-loading of purpose, then use cases, then technical details. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, caching policy, and practical use cases. No missing information for an AI agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with enum descriptions, but description adds practical guidance: 'shorter windows surface what's hot right now; longer windows show steady-state demand.' This provides decision-making context beyond the schema's description.

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

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

Description clearly states the verb 'Returns' and the resources: top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a specific window. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'discover_tools' or 'search' by specifying trend data aggregated from other AI agents.

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 three explicit use cases for when to use this tool (discovering hot data sources, confirming canonical choice, seeing alignment with agent needs). Does not explicitly state when to avoid, but positive guidance is strong. Mentions caching behavior for expectation management.

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?

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: describes scanning behavior, semantic anchor (Jaccard similarity), partition filter, fill check logic, and response structure. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.).

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?

Highly informative but slightly verbose with some repetition. Front-loads purpose effectively. Could be more structured, but 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?

Comprehensive for a complex tool: covers all modes, internal logic, conditions, response fields, and mentions related tools. No output schema but description explains response structure 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions, and the description adds significant value: explains expected inputs (slugs, URLs, seed questions), provides examples, and details how each parameter affects behavior.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool finds arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket using monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_fill_risk by specifying the exact method and scope.

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 explains when to use each mode: no args for trending scan, event for specific markets, topic for cross-event. Recommends event for specific markets and mentions alternatives like polymarket_fill_risk for custom sizing. Includes conditions for skipping (low similarity, high placeholder fraction) and fill check 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?

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations, including the three model families, caching behavior, diagnostics, and the exclusion of Fed bets from ranking. It provides deep insight into how the tool operates, far exceeding the standard 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 well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. While lengthy, it is not verbose; each sentence adds information. It could be tighter but effectively organizes complex details.

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 explains the response structure, including segments, diagnostics, and edge fields. It also covers caching and parameter behavior, making the tool's use fully understandable without additional documentation.

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

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as explaining why min_partition_leg_kelly exists and the impact of slippage_pp. It enhances understanding of parameter semantics, justifying a score above baseline.

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 scans top Polymarket markets for opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price, which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage, so purpose clarity is very good but not perfect.

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

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

The description implies usage for discovering betting opportunities without paging through markets, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus others, nor does it mention alternatives. Usage is implied but not directly addressed.

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 as true, destructiveHint false. The description aligns with these and adds significant behavioral details: it uses daily snapshots, computes trend and decay, returns expired opportunities with lifespan, and explains snapshot gaps. 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 a single dense paragraph with bold for key terms. It is informative but could benefit from clearer structuring (e.g., bullet points for response fields). It is not overly long but lacks optimal scannability.

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 explains the response structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), covers limits (60-day TTL, snapshot gaps), and provides necessary context for interpreting decay calculations. This makes the tool fully understandable without additional schema.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (days, window). The description adds defaults (14, '1wk') and a max clamp (30) for days, and mentions snapshot families for window. However, these additions are modest and the schema already provides the core semantics, so a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Edge persistence and decay telemetry built from daily polymarket_edges snapshots.' It answers a specific question ('how long has this edge existed and is it shrinking?') and distinguishes itself from siblings like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical persistence and decay.

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 implicit usage context (e.g., contrasting a fresh wide edge vs a 3-week-old edge) and mentions limitations (60-day TTL, daily closes). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like polymarket_edges or compare_entities, and does not state clear when-not-to-use conditions.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint. Description adds context about checking live order book depth, walking the ladder, returning a verdict, and the risk of partial basket fills. 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 capitals and newlines to separate modes. It is front-loaded with core purpose. Some redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is organized and necessary detail is present.

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 lists return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, etc.) and explains each mode's outputs. It covers the tool's interaction with other tools and the risk of unhedged positions, making it complete 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 coverage is 100%, and description adds significant meaning: explains size_usd interpretation per mode, default side auto for basket, and the distinction between market and event 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 clearly states it performs a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth', distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use (before acting on arb signals or trades above ~$500) and warns against consequences of not using it (partial fills converting arb into directional position). Provides requirements (market or event) and default behaviors.

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 readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description details compatibility_warning scenarios, temporal_alignment, and skipped_cross counters. It honestly states that real spreads are rare, adding significant behavioral context that helps the agent set expectations.

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 well-organized, introducing the tool, modes, response fields, and safety fields. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds necessary context, and the structure is logical.

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

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

Given the complexity of cross-venue spreads and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response format (leg-by-leg prices, top_spreads_pp, compatibility_warning, temporal_alignment, skipped counters). It covers edge cases and safety fields 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of the two modes (auto-fetch vs explicit override) and provides examples. It clarifies that explicit parameters override topic-mapped sides.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool computes cross-venue spreads between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on cross-venue comparison.

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

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

The description explicitly outlines two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit pairing) and warns that most pre-mapped topics are not tradeable. It provides clear context on when to use explicit mode over shortcuts, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives among 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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description adds behavioral details: scope (identifier) and dual behavior (retrieve vs list). No contradictions.

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

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

The description is concise (2-3 sentences) with important information front-loaded, no redundant text, and clear structure.

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?

While the description covers usage and scope, it lacks details on the return format (e.g., data type of retrieved value). No output schema exists, so this gap is notable.

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

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

The description reinforces the schema's parameter explanation with context (key omitted lists all) and examples, adding value beyond the schema's description.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a value saved via remember or lists all keys, with concrete examples (ticker, address, notes). It differentiates from siblings by mentioning pairing with 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?

It explains when to use (look up stored context) and mentions related tools (remember, forget), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other search 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 already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and mutability. The description adds little beyond what annotations provide, only specifying the scope 'across PLOS'. No mention of behavior like default row count, ordering, or response structure.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is too brief. It omits details about the parameter and expected behavior, leaving gaps that are not filled by annotations or schema alone.

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 ('rows') with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention 'rows' or any default value, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use or omit this 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 'Most recent publications across PLOS' clearly identifies the tool as retrieving recent publications from PLOS. It uses a specific verb (implied get/list) and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'search' or 'recent_alerts'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search', 'recent_alerts'). The context signals and sibling list are available, but the description itself lacks any usage 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 declare readOnlyHint:true, but the description states that setting mark_read:true 'flags returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones', implying a state change. This directly contradicts the readOnlyHint annotation, making the description unreliable.

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

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

The description is concise and well-structured, with the main action in the first sentence followed by specifics. Some slight redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it's economical.

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 covers return fields, filtering, mark_read semantics, polling suitability, and an alternative REST endpoint. It provides sufficient context for using the tool, though the annotation contradiction undermines trust.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaning by providing an example filter value ('sec_8k'), clarifying the format of 'since' as ISO timestamp, and explaining the side effect of mark_read:true.

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 'pull' and the resource 'fired events from your subscription feed', specifying it returns recent alerts with source, citation_uri, and raw payload. This sets it apart from sibling tools like 'recent' or 'recent_changes'.

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 guidance on filtering by type and ISO timestamp, explains mark_read:true behavior to prevent re-returning events, and notes that polling works and an alternative endpoint exists. Lacks explicit comparison to other tools but offers clear operational 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant context: it fans out in parallel, handles GDELT→GNews fallback, soft-fails USPTO due to API sunset, and returns structured changes grouped by source with citation URIs. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is dense and well-structured, front-loading purpose with natural language examples, then detailing sources, parameters, output, and alternative. Every sentence adds value, though it is fairly long. A minor trim could improve conciseness.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, and complex behavior (multiple sources, fallbacks, soft-fail), the description is comprehensive. It explains all data sources, fallback logic, output format (changes[] grouped, total_changes count, citation URIs), and exactly when to use entity_profile instead.

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

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

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by providing concrete examples for 'since' (ISO date and relative shorthand, with recommendation '30d' or '1m'), explains 'value' can be ticker or CIK, and clarifies 'type' is limited to 'company'. Slightly above baseline.

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 provides a change feed for a company, listing specific data sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews, USPTO). It distinguishes itself from entity_profile by explaining the static vs. change feed difference, and provides concrete example queries like 'What's new with X'.

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 (e.g., 'latest on Y', 'updates on Acme') and when not to ('Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile...'). It also explains fallback behavior from GDELT to GNews under rate limits/errors, giving clear 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 provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds persistence behavior (authenticated vs anonymous), scoping by identifier, and pairing with recall/forget, which are valuable 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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with main purpose, every sentence adds value. Efficient and 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?

Given simple tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: usage, behavior, persistence, and pairing with siblings. No critical gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description reinforces key-value concept and gives key naming examples, but adds limited meaning 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 tool saves data for later reuse, with specific examples like tickers, addresses, preferences. It distinguishes from siblings recall and forget by mentioning pairing.

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 (when discovering something worth carrying forward) and provides examples and pairing with recall/forget. However, no explicit when-not 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 indicate safe, idempotent, read-only behavior. Description adds that it cascades through multiple endpoints internally and replaces 2-3 manual lookups, enhancing understanding of its internal complexity and efficiency.

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 front-loaded example queries. Each sentence adds value, though could be slightly more concise. 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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return values for each type and the cascading internal logic. Lacks details on error handling or missing entities, but overall complete for typical 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% and description enriches both parameters with examples (e.g., 'AAPL', '0000320193') and clarifies what each type returns (ticker, CIK, RxCUI). This goes beyond 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?

Description clearly states it resolves names to canonical/official identifiers, with specific examples (ticker, CIK, RxCUI). It distinguishes from siblings by advising 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' Supported types are detailed with return values and input formats.

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 usage guidance ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.'), but does not mention when not to use or explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world hints. The description adds context: it calls ai_visibility_check per entity, returns a ranked list with score, confidence, and signal density. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model without contradicting annotations.

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

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

The description is three sentences: purpose, method, use case/return format. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. 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 complexity (multi-entity comparison, calling another tool), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it works, what it returns (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains return values. No gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it mentions entities as 'brand/business/product names' but that is already in the schema description. No new parameter semantics are provided.

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: 'Compare AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side.' It explains that it probes each entity using ai_visibility_check, ranks by score, and surfaces most/least recognized. This distinguishes it from the sibling ai_visibility_check, which is for single 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 provides a specific use case: 'Useful for competitive AI-marketing audits' and gives an example question. It implies when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it. The context signals indicate multiple siblings, but the description adequately hints at its comparative nature.

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 annotations: it explains the composite nature (fans out across two services), mentions graceful degradation with sources_failed list, and notes that bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false all align).

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 dense paragraph that packs a lot of information without wasted words. However, it could be slightly more scannable with bullet points or clearer separation of use cases and limitations. It earns its length but is not maximally concise.

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

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

Without an output schema, the description thoroughly lists return fields (summary block with specific fields, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions). It also covers ecosystem scope, performance notes, and error handling for partial failures. For a composite tool with complexity, this is 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by noting that scoped packages (e.g., @types/node) are accepted and that version defaults to the latest published. While the schema already does well, the description provides practical usage hints.

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 starts with a specific verb phrase 'Composite should I add this npm package to my project check' and defines the tool's action: scanning across deps.dev and bundlephobia for license, advisories, version history, bundle size, etc. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting NPM-only scope and fallback for other ecosystems.

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: 'Use whenever an agent asks is X safe / popular / small' and provides a concrete example. It also specifies limitations (NPM ecosystem only in v1) and directs to alternatives (deps.dev:version directly for other ecosystems). Performance caveats for bundlephobia are included.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds behavioral context: default return fields, support for pagination, sorting, and custom field selection. No contradictions, but no mention of performance 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and supported features. 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?

Given 5 parameters, an output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is complete: covers scope, query syntax, pagination, sorting, field selection, and default fields. No major 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 80% and descriptions exist for most parameters. The description adds value by explaining parameter usage in context (e.g., field-qualified queries, pagination via rows and start, sorting, custom fields via fl).

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 is specific: 'Solr-powered full-text search across all PLOS open-access journals' with examples of field-qualified queries. It clearly distinguishes from more specific sibling tools like search_authored_by and search_within by being the general search.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_authored_by or search_within. The description implies it's the default search but lacks when-not or alternative tool references.

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

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, open world). The description adds no further behavioral context, such as pagination, result limits, or return format. With annotations covering this aspect, a score of 3 is appropriate—adequate but uninformative.

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 very concise at four words, but it sacrifices clarity. While it is front-loaded and wastes no space, it is too brief to fully convey the tool's purpose and behavior. A balance is needed.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about the scope of articles, how the search is performed, and any limitations. Annotations cover safety, but overall completeness is mediocre.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'author name' but does not explicitly link to the 'name' parameter or explain the optional 'rows' parameter. The examples in the schema provide some context, but the description itself adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema already implies.

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 'Articles by author name' clearly states the tool's function: searching for articles by an author. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('articles'), and the requirement of an author name differentiates it from broader sibling tools like 'search'. However, it is somewhat vague as 'articles' is generic.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search' or 'search_within'. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for when not to use it, which is a significant gap given the number of 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?

Discloses embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity metric (cosine), chunking (500-char overlapping windows), size limit (200K chars with truncation flag), and output details (offsets, scores). Adds value 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 packed with essential info, front-loaded with purpose. 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?

Explains return values (passages with offsets and scores) despite no output schema. Covers edge case (truncation) and workflow pairing. Complete 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%, but description enriches each parameter with purpose, examples, and behavior (e.g., truncation for text, query examples, default for limit).

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

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

Clearly states semantic search inside a fetched record, specifying action and resource. Distinguishes from siblings by mentioning pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded and contrast with fetching whole document.

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: when record is too big to fit in prompt. Names alternative tool ask_pipeworx_grounded and explains the workflow.

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?

Disclosure of OAuth requirement, return value, delivery constraints (SMS cap, webhook auto-disable), and idempotency hints. 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?

Concise yet comprehensive; each sentence adds value, front-loaded with purpose, 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 complexity (3 params, nested objects, enum types, delivery options), the description is fully complete, covering all aspects without needing 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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters; description adds rich context with examples and constraints for each subscription type and delivery channel, enhancing understanding 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 it creates a monitoring subscription and returns the subscription ID, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'unsubscribe' and 'list_subscriptions'.

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

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

Explicitly states requirement for Pipeworx OAuth account and lists all subscription types with details. Does not explicitly exclude use cases, but context implies when 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context about the return structure (category-bucketed questions with exact tool+argument shape) and that it's drawn from a live catalog. No contradictions.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with typical user questions, then explains output, usage, and parameter. Every sentence earns its place, though it is slightly verbose. Well-structured for an 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 no output schema, the description fully informs the agent about the return type (category-bucketed examples with tool arguments). It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and behavioral context (live catalog). Complete for an onboarding 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 a clear description of the topic parameter. The description restates the parameter behavior ('Call with no arguments for the full spread, or pass topic') and gives examples, adding marginal value beyond the schema. 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 is for onboarding: 'the onboarding entry point for an agent that just connected and wants to know what is worth asking'. It specifies the output ('category-bucketed example questions') and distinguishes from siblings like discover_tools by stating 'Use this FIRST' and mentioning meta-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 tells when to use: '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 explains the optional topic parameter for focus. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, 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?

Description adds key behavioral details beyond annotations: ownership enforcement, deactivation vs deletion, and impact on recent_alerts. This provides valuable context for the agent.

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

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

Two concise sentences: first states the action and constraint, second explains the consequence. 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers ownership, effect on data, and relation to other tools. It is complete for the 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?

Input schema already describes the 'id' parameter as 'Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe.' The description does not add extra meaning, so baseline 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 action ('Cancel a subscription by id') and distinguishes from siblings like subscribe and list_subscriptions. It also clarifies that the subscription is deactivated, not deleted, adding specificity.

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 (to cancel a subscription) and specifies ownership enforcement. It does not explicitly mention alternatives but implies that permanent deletion is not provided. The context of historical events staying available is helpful.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds transparency about return value (verdict, structured form, actual value with citation, delta) and data source (SEC EDGAR + XBRL). No contradictions. Additional 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 front-loaded with key queries and purpose, then details scope, output, and efficiency gains. While slightly long (7 sentences), every sentence serves a purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but structure is logical.

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

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

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is thorough: explains input, output, scope, data source, and replaces multiple calls. Fully covers what the agent needs to know to use it 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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by providing examples ('"Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion"') and clarifying that claims are natural-language, which is already in schema but enhanced with context and supported claim types.

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 uses specific verbs ('verify', 'fact check') and clearly identifies the resource (natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying scope (company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR + XBRL) and noting that 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' Provides example user intents and scope (public US company claims). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the scope limitation serves as implicit exclusion.

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