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

Annotations already show readOnly=true and idempotent=true. Description adds critical behavioral context: it is the onboarding entry point, returns live catalog-derived samples, and can be called with zero arguments. 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 the core question and purpose. It is slightly verbose due to listing categories, but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly but remains 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 the tool's role as an onboarding entry point, the description fully explains its return format (category-bucketed examples with tool+argument shape), invocation options, and relationship to meta-tools. No output schema is needed.

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 schema already describes the 'topic' parameter with allowed values and behavior. The description reiterates these options but 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?

The description explicitly states the tool returns category-bucketed example questions for onboarding. It uses specific verbs and resources ('returns example questions') and distinguishes itself by being the first call when unfamiliar with Pipeworx.

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?

Clear when to use: 'FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do' and 'to learn how to call the meta-tools'. Provides alternatives (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, etc.) and explains argument usage (omit for spread or pass topic).

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