Salesforce

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds beyond: default model, cost implication of Anthropic, and return structure (score, confidence, signals, raw_response). 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?

Two sentences with clear structure: purpose first, then details on models and return. No extraneous text; every sentence adds value.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (multiple models, optional key, scoring), the description covers purpose, parameters, return format, and use cases. Without an output schema, it compensates by detailing the per-model response structure.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaningful context: default model, optional Anthropic key, and help context for disambiguation. This goes beyond the 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?

The description clearly states it probes LLMs for knowledge about an entity and returns visibility scores. Verb 'probe' and resource 'LLMs' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on AI visibility scoring, unlike scan_competitor_ai_presence which may have different 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?

The description gives explicit use cases: AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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

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

Description adds context about routing to 3,745 tools and returning structured answers with citation URIs, supplementing the annotations 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?

The description is well-structured, starting with a clear directive and covering purpose, scope, and examples without unnecessary repetition.

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?

Covers key aspects: domain, routing mechanism, types of questions, and output format (structured with citations). Missing explicit details about exact response structure but sufficient given no 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 coverage is 100% and description adds examples of valid questions, clarifying the use of multiple aliases and natural language input.

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 it answers factual questions about current/historical data from authoritative sources, listing specific domains (SEC, FDA, etc.) and example questions, clearly distinguishing itself from web 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?

The description strongly recommends using this tool over web search for factual queries and provides extensive examples, but does not explicitly mention when web search or sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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 significant behavioral context beyond annotations: costs one extra LLM call, returns specific refusal reasons, extracts answer using only tool result. 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?

Slightly long but every sentence adds value. Key information front-loaded. Minor room for tightening.

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 description fully documents return format including success and refusal reasons. Handles high complexity well.

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?

Six parameters with 100% schema coverage; description only reiterates aliases from schema, adding no new semantic meaning. 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?

Explicitly states it is a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads. Clearly distinguishes from sibling ask_pipeworx by noting extra cost 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?

Provides explicit guidance: use when answer will be quoted or acted on, prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups. Also mentions cost trade-off.

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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds extensive context: resolution process, fan-out, response shapes, resolver contract, parent event extractor, news fields, safety mechanisms, and resolution-rule risk. 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?

Description is long but well-structured with labeled sections (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, etc.). Front-loads purpose. While verbose, the complexity justifies the length. Could be slightly more concise but effective.

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

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

No output schema exists, so description fully explains return values, including result.market, result.analysis, result.evidence, result.market_match_confidence, etc. Covers edge cases (low confidence, closed markets, wide spreads, cancellation rules). Complete for a complex 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 descriptions for all three parameters. Description adds meaning beyond schema: market parameter explained with examples (slug, URL, question text), depth enum with default, include_raw with KB estimates. Highly informative.

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 researches Polymarket bets by pulling Pipeworx data in one call. It specifies input types (slug, URL, question text) and output (evidence packet, market-vs-model comparison). Distinguishes from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on evidence gathering.

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?

Explicit use cases are given: 'should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y', or 'is there edge in Z'. Provides classifiers and fan-out examples. Implicitly guides when not to use via safety features (low-confidence match, closed markets). Comprehensive and actionable.

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

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

Annotations are already present (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.) and the description adds valuable behavioral context: handling of off-calendar fiscal years, sorting by primary metric, and inclusion of citation URIs. 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?

The description is relatively long but every sentence adds value. It is well-structured, starting with trigger phrases, and remains informative 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return format (paired data + citations) and sorting. It covers all essential behavioral aspects for effective use.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful examples and usage details for both parameters, clarifying input formats (tickers vs names) and constraints (2-5 items).

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 side-by-side comparison of 2-5 companies or drugs, specifying data sources (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for companies, FAERS/FDA/clinical trials for drugs) and metrics. It distinguishes from sequential lookups and sibling tools.

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

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

The description explicitly says to prefer this over sequential lookups and gives example queries. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the guidance is strong and 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?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds behavioral details: decomposition into sub-questions, parallel routing, extraction with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, citations, explicit gaps[], and expected timing (15-60s). 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 slightly long but front-loaded with the core value proposition. Each sentence adds meaningful context, including usage guidelines and behavioral details. No wasted words, though could be slightly more 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?

Given the complexity of the tool (multi-source research, decomposition, parallel routing), the description is comprehensive. It explains what is returned (structured findings packet, verbatim evidence, gaps) and parameter behavior. No output schema exists, so description adequately fills the gap.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining depth enum values (quick=3, standard=5, thorough=8) and clarifying that question is in natural language and broad/multi-part is fine. This goes beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Grounded multi-source research in ONE call.' It explains decomposition, parallel routing, and extraction of grounded answers. It distinguishes from the sibling tool ask_pipeworx, which is for single lookups.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use for broad or multi-part questions' and 'use ask_pipeworx for single lookups.' It also mentions prerequisites (Pipeworx account) and depth requirements (paid plan for thorough).

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 read/idempotent operation; the description adds that results include full schemas and are ready to call, enhancing transparency 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words, highly efficient.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (top-N tools with schemas) and that results are immediately callable.

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 value with example use cases and clarifies that multiple aliases exist for the query parameter.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool finds tools by describing data or task, lists numerous use cases, and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform specific data queries.

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 advises to 'Call this FIRST when you have many tools available and want to see the option set,' providing clear guidance on when to use it.

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 true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds that patents 'soft-fails until reactivated' due to API sunset, and explains the parallel fan-out across multiple sources. This gives the agent full understanding of expected behavior and potential failures beyond what annotations convey.

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 front-loads example queries. While it contains all necessary information, it could be more structured (e.g., bulleted return fields). However, it is concise for the amount of detail and avoids 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully enumerates return fields with detail: cik, company_name, recent_filings (with URIs), fundamentals (ordered), patents (with soft-fail note), news, and LEI. This gives the agent a complete mental model of what to expect from the 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% (2 params: type and value). The description repeats the allowed values and adds context: 'Pass ticker "AAPL" or zero-padded CIK "0000320193" — names not supported'. This adds clarity beyond the enum and description in the schema, earning above baseline 3.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call.' It specifies the resources (SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO, news, GLEIF) and what is returned. This distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_entity (name resolution) and deep_research (likely more in-depth).

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 'ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups' for holistic views, and directs to use resolve_entity if only a name is available. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including a direct alternative.

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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; description merely restates deletion without additional behavioral context (e.g., permission requirements, side effects).

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 core action, and efficient usage guidance.

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

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

Sufficient for a simple tool with one parameter; covers action, usage guidance, and sibling pairing.

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 does not add meaning beyond the schema's 'Memory key to delete'; baseline 3 applies.

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

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

Clearly states verb 'Delete' and resource 'memory by key', distinguishing it from sibling tools 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (stale context, task done, clear sensitive data) and mentions pairing with remember/recall, but lacks when-not-to.

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 the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint=true), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description reinforces this by detailing the action: 'Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format.' No behavioral contradiction exists; the description aligns with and adds context to the annotations.

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

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

The description is a single, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose, then explains the process, and ends with concrete use cases. Every sentence serves a purpose; there is no redundant or vague language. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema, rich annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it works (fetch, extract, emit), what the output looks like ('standard llms.txt markdown format'), and where to deploy it ('site-root/llms.txt'). No gaps are evident.

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% (both 'url' and 'max_links' are described). The description supplements this by clarifying 'url' as a full URL and 'max_links' as the maximum number of link entries, including defaults (25) and max (50). This adds slight value beyond the schema, but the schema already does most of the work.

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 core function: generating a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL. It specifies the verb 'generate', the resource 'llms.txt file', and the context (AI crawler indexing). It further distinguishes the tool from its many siblings by listing concrete use cases (client site indexing, own project drafting, competitor auditing).

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 scenarios ('Useful for: getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor'). This gives clear context for when to use the tool. It could be improved by also stating when not to use it (e.g., for non-HTML content), but the current guidance is adequate.

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. The description adds return field details but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what's in annotations, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 with two sentences, no unnecessary words. First sentence states purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance. Every phrase adds value.

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

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

For a simple list tool with one optional boolean parameter and annotations covering safety, the description fully conveys what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps remain.

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 the single parameter (include_inactive), so the description doesn't need to add parameter info. The description does not add extra context, but baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already fully describes it.

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 (list), resource (subscriptions), and scope (caller's active subscriptions), and lists specific return fields, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like subscribe and unsubscribe.

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 the tool: 'to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.' Although it doesn't mention when not to use it, the guidance is clear and 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?

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: rate-limited to 5 per day, free, doesn't count against quota, team reads daily. Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint=0, etc.) and description does not contradict. Could mention if any confirmation is sent, but overall good.

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 single paragraph with front-loaded purpose, then usage, then behavioral notes. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose in places. Could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers usage, rate limits, and quota. It is complete for a simple feedback tool; no missing critical information.

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 adds value by explaining enum options for 'type' with examples, describing the optional 'context' object, and giving length/specificity guidance for 'message'. More than just schema repetition.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool sends feedback to the Pipeworx team about bugs, missing features, data gaps, or praise. It distinguishes itself by providing specific categories and context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 (for bugs, features, praise) and what not to do (don't paste end-user prompts). Mentions rate limits and free usage, and guides describing issues in terms of tools/packs. Very helpful for selection.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds context about data source (CF analytics), privacy (no PII), and caching (5min-1h). This 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?

Four sentences with front-loaded purpose, bullet-like use cases, and no filler. Every sentence provides essential information.

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

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

Given the tool simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter nuance. It does not detail return format but that is acceptable given the 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 only parameter 'window' is fully described in the schema (enum). The description adds semantic meaning: short windows show 'hot right now', long windows show 'steady-state demand', enhancing understanding.

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 returns top tools, top packs, and total call volume over a recent window. It uses specific verbs and resources and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on trending data.

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?

Three explicit use cases are provided, along with guidance on window selection. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it directly to siblings like discover_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=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: partition_check details, fill_check with realizable_edge_pp condition, semantic anchor with Jaccard similarity, partition filter with placeholder detection, and response structure. 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?

Front-loaded with the key requirement, then clearly structures modes, filters, and checks. While somewhat verbose, each sentence serves a purpose. Could be tightened slightly, but overall well-organized.

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 and lack of output schema, the description comprehensively covers request constraints, internal checks, response format, and failure conditions (e.g., placeholder filter, low similarity). Missing explicit handling of providing both parameters, but the 'REQUIRES one of' statement implies exclusivity. Slightly more detail on error cases would elevate to 5.

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 crucial usage context beyond the schema: explains that event accepts full Polymarket URLs, gives example slugs, and describes the behavioral difference between event and topic modes. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw parameter 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 it finds arbitrage opportunities via monotonicity violations and partition-sum checks, and distinguishes between event mode (single-event) and topic mode (cross-event). The verb 'find' is specific, and the resource 'arbitrage opportunities' is well-defined, differentiating it from sibling tools like polymarket_fill_risk.

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 REQUIRES one of event or topic, and explains when to use each mode. Recommends event for specific markets and topic for cross-event scanning. Mentions a sibling tool (polymarket_fill_risk) for custom sizing, but does not compare to other siblings like polymarket_edges or polymarket_edge_tracker, which would strengthen 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: caching (Cached 1h at KV level), model family characteristics (e.g., news_momentum is soft signal, concentrated_longshot is rare-by-design), and diagnostic info to explain empty segments. This enriches transparency 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 very long and dense with technical details. While well-structured with clear sections, it could be more concise. Every sentence adds information, but the length may hinder quick understanding.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema), the description comprehensively explains the response structure (by_segment, fed candidates, diagnostics), caching, model families, and parameter behavior. It fully compensates for the lack of 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The description adds some extra context (e.g., 'Tradeable-edge filters' for min_liquidity/max_spread_pp, explanation of min_kelly), but the added value is marginal. Baseline 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 'scans top Polymarket markets and returns opportunities where Pipeworx data disagrees with market price'. It is specific about the verb (scan, return), resource (Polymarket markets), and distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage by focusing on Pipeworx-derived edge detection.

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 ('Built for what should I bet on today') and provides context for when to use it (agents without paging hundreds of markets). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings like bet_research or polymarket_arbitrage.

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, idempotentHint=true, etc., so the description complements by adding behavior like snapshot gaps ('gaps mean nobody scanned that day') and computation details (decay from daily closes, not intraday). It explains the output structure but does not contradict 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 moderately concise; it front-loads the core purpose and then details output fields and limits. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating default values). It is well-structured but slightly verbose for a tool description.

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 the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (tracked[], expired[], snapshot_dates[]), field meanings (trend, decay_pp_per_day, lifespan_days), and limitations (TTL, snapshot gaps). It provides sufficient context for an agent to correctly interpret results.

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 both parameters (days, window) described in the schema. The description adds minimal value: it reiterates defaults (14 for days, '1wk' for window) and mentions max 30 for days. This does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool provides 'edge persistence and decay telemetry' from daily snapshots, answering how long an edge has existed and if it is shrinking. It uses specific verbs (persistence, decay telemetry, answers) and the resource (daily polymarket_edges snapshots). It distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_edges by focusing on historical analysis rather than just listing 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?

The description provides usage context: 'a fresh wide edge and a 3-week-old wide edge are different trades', implying when to use the tool (before trading based on edge age). It also explains limits (60-day TTL, daily closes, not intraday) and mentions the median lifespan as a 'competition clock'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative 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 indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant detail: it simulates fills by walking the order book ladder, returns fields like top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage, and verdict, and warns about directional risk from partial fills. 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 long but well-organized with bold headers for modes and bullet-like output lists. Every sentence adds value given the tool's complexity. Could be slightly more concise, but structure aids 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 enumerates return values for both modes and explains associated risks. It covers edge cases like thin books and unhedged positions. However, it does not specify behavior when both market and event are provided, nor exact output format.

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%, but the tool description adds crucial context: interpretation of size_usd differs between single-market and basket, side default auto-detection in basket mode, and the mutual exclusivity of market and event. This goes beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and explicitly contrasts with 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also warns about when not to rely on theoretical overround and explains the risk of partial fills.

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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral details: compatibility reasons for no spread, alignment checks, and counters for dropped comparisons. 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?

Well-structured with clear sections (TWO MODES, RESPONSE, SAFETY FIELDS), but somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value, so it earns a high score despite 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 the complexity of cross-venue spread computation, the description covers purpose, modes, response structure, safety fields, limitations, and interpretation. No output schema, but the explanation of response fields suffices.

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% but description adds value by explaining the two modes (topic vs explicit), providing examples for topic shortcuts, and clarifying that explicit tickers override the topic. Minor deduction because the description is verbose but still helpful.

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 the tool computes cross-venue spread between Polymarket and Kalshi for the same resolving question, describes two modes (topic shortcuts and explicit tickers), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on single-venue analysis or different types of 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 tells when to use: to compare prices across venues, with pre-mapped shortcuts or custom pairings. Provides guidance on when spreads are meaningful (aligned temporal period) and warns that many pre-mapped topics are not yet tradeable due to compatibility issues.

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 readOnly and idempotent. Description adds scope detail (anonymous IP, BYO key hash, account ID) 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, front-loaded with main action, no redundant words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description explains return behavior (value or list of keys). Covers pairing with remember/forget and scope. Complete for a simple 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 adds critical behavior: 'omit key to list all keys', which is not in schema. Enhances understanding.

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 the verb (retrieve/list) and resource (previously saved values/keys). Distinct from siblings 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?

Explicitly gives use cases (look up context, without re-deriving) and mentions scoping. Does not explicitly state when not to use but positive guidance is strong.

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, describes returned fields (source, citation_uri, payload), filter behavior, mark_read side effect, and polling suitability. 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?

Four focused sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded purpose, each sentence adds unique value: action, return structure, filters, polling/alternative.

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?

Adequately describes return shape and filter options. Misses explanation of unread_only parameter, but schema description covers it. Mentions alternative endpoint for completeness.

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 example values (e.g., 'sec_8k'), clarifies 'since' as ISO timestamp, and explains mark_read behavior 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?

Uses specific verb 'Pull' and resource 'subscription feed'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_subscriptions by focusing on alert events rather than subscription metadata.

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 context for polling and an alternative HTTP endpoint, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. siblings like list_subscriptions or subscribe. Does not state when not to use the tool.

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, etc.), description reveals fan-out to multiple sources, fallback logic, soft-failure for USPTO, accepted date formats, and return structure. 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?

Description is moderately long but front-loaded with example queries. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., mentions fallback twice). Overall 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 complexity (multiple sources, fallback, no output schema), the description thoroughly covers behavior, inputs, return format (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, citations), and edge cases like USPTO sunset. Leaves no significant 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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions, but the tool description adds valuable context: explains 'since' options (ISO date vs. relative shorthand with examples), clarifies 'value' can be ticker or CIK, and notes 'type' only supports 'company'.

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 over a time window, lists specific sources (SEC EDGAR, GDELT→GNews, USPTO), and distinguishes it from sibling tool 'entity_profile' which provides static profiles.

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 example queries, explains when to use alternatives (entity_profile for static profile), and details fallback behavior between GDELT and GNews. Gives clear context for usage.

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

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

Adds behavioral details beyond annotations: 'Stored as a key-value pair scoped by your identifier. Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions retain memory for 24 hours.' 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?

Four sentences, each adding value. Front-loaded with the main action, then usage condition, persistence details, and pairing advice. No unnecessary words.

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

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

For a simple tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers behavior, scope, persistence, and sibling tools. Complete and self-contained.

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 the purpose of key-value pairs and provides examples, adding narrative 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: 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later'. It specifies the verb (save), resource (data), and the scope (across conversation/sessions, scoped by identifier). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'recall' 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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward'. Provides alternatives: 'Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete.' Gives concrete examples of what to store.

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 destructiveHint=false. The description adds detail about internal cascading lookups, return formats (ticker+CIK+name for companies, RxCUI+ingredient+brand for drugs), and citation URIs, which is 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?

The description is approximately 8 sentences, front-loaded with examples and the core usage directive. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Structure flows logically from general usage to specific details per type.

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 moderate complexity (two entity types, multiple input formats), the description covers return values for each type and mentions internal behavior. While there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what to expect. Minor gap: not explicitly stating the output is a JSON object, but sufficient for agent 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning: for 'type' it explains accepted values and for 'value' it gives concrete examples (e.g., 'AAPL', '0000320193', 'ozempic'). This clarifies input formats beyond the schema's minimal 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 resolves names to canonical identifiers, provides example queries, and distinguishes it as the primary tool for ID resolution. It is specific about verb ('resolve') and resource ('names to IDs'), effectively differentiating from sibling tools.

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

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

The description explicitly advises 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like entity_profile, but the guidance is strong enough for most 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?

Describes internal behavior (probing with ai_visibility_check, ranking, returning score/confidence/signal density) beyond annotations which already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. 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?

Two sentences: first summarizes the action, second details process and use case. No redundant information, efficient and front-loaded.

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

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

Given no output schema, description specifies return type (ranked list with score, confidence, signal density per entity). Also mentions constraints (2-8 entities, first is subject) and annotation hints round out completeness.

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 with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds context about treatment of first entity as 'subject' and the ranking aspect, which adds value 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 compares AI visibility across multiple entities side-by-side, using specific verbs (compare, probes, ranks, surfaces) and distinguishes from sibling 'ai_visibility_check' which is a lower-level probe.

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 provides a use case ('competitive AI-marketing audits') with a concrete question example. However, does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives like 'compare_entities' sibling.

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: composite nature, fan-out to two services, partial failure handling with graceful degradation, bundlephobia's first measurement delay (5-30s), and the 'sources_failed' field. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is dense with information but well-structured, starting with the core purpose. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly for 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?

Covers output fields, partial failures, ecosystem limitations, and timing. However, does not describe the worst-case failure scenario when both sources fail. Overall fairly complete given the 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minor extra context (scoped packages accepted, defaults to latest) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a composite check for adding npm packages, aggregating data from deps.dev and bundlephobia. It is specific and distinguishes itself from other tools in the sibling list, which are unrelated.

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

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

Explicit guidance: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me". Also specifies when not to use: 'NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly.' This provides clear 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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: embedding model (BGE-base-en), chunking (500-char overlapping windows), character cap (200K chars with truncation flag), and that every passage includes an offset for verification. 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 (~80 words), front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently covers behavior, parameters, and usage hints without redundancy. 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return format (passages with offsets and scores), mentions cap and truncation, and pairs with a sibling tool. It provides 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it reinforces that text should be 'already pulled' and gives example queries, but does not provide new parameter-level semantics.

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 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record', specifies input types (SEC 10-K, article, tool result) and output (top-N passages with offsets and similarity scores). It distinguishes itself by pairing with ask_pipeworx_grounded, though not explicitly differentiating from siblings.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context, returns only the passages that matter.' Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded for a complete workflow. Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the use case 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?

Annotations already indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it returns the new record ID, but does not elaborate on behavioral details such as duplicate behavior, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description adds marginal 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?

The description is extremely concise with three short sentences that immediately convey the action, required inputs, and output. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 create operation, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does, what it requires, and what it returns. The presence of an output schema (known from context) further reduces the need for detailed return value explanation. Slight gap in not mentioning any prerequisites or constraints.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (object and fields), so the description does not need to add more. The description mentions examples which align with schema, but no additional semantic guidance.

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 'create', the resource 'Salesforce record', and specifies the required inputs (object type and field values) and output (new record ID). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that delete, update, or query records.

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 creating new records, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over its siblings (e.g., sf_update_record). No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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 destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds 'Returns success status', which is useful but doesn't elaborate on permanence, permissions, or cascading effects. Adequate but minimal 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and key inputs, second states return value. No filler, front-loaded.

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

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

Adequate for a simple destructive tool with 2 well-described params and an output schema (mentioned, not shown). Could mention what happens on missing record, but likely covered by output schema. 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for id and object. Description merely restates 'Specify object type and record ID', adding no new semantic meaning.

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 'Delete a Salesforce record by ID' with verb and resource. Specifies 'object type and record ID' parameter pattern. Distinct from sibling tools like sf_create_record and sf_update_record.

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 (to delete a record by ID). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites, but the scope is straightforward given the sibling set includes create/update/query.

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 safe read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns 'field names, types, relationships, and metadata', providing useful behavioral detail beyond what annotations convey.

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 tool's function, second gives 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, annotations covering safety and idempotency, and full schema coverage of the single parameter, the description is fully adequate. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and provides an example.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'object' parameter. The tool description adds context by specifying what the return includes (field names, types, relationships, metadata), which enhances parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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

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

The description uses specific verb 'Get schema details' and resource 'Salesforce object', gives example 'Account', and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like sf_query or sf_get_record which deal with data rather than schema.

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 'Use before querying to understand available fields', providing clear when-to-use context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tool set implies other tools are for data operations.

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 destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns all fields, which is consistent and 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and key inputs, no unnecessary words. Highly concise 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 the output schema exists, the description is complete. It covers the inputs, the action, and the return behavior (all fields) without needing to detail the output structure.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema itself fully describes the parameters with examples. The description only reiterates what is in the schema, adding no new semantic information beyond the core need to specify object and id.

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 it fetches a single Salesforce record by ID, specifying object type and record ID. Distinguishes from sibling tools like sf_query, sf_search, and sf_list_objects by focusing on a single record retrieval.

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?

Describes when to use (when you have a record ID and object type), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like sf_query for multiple records. However, the purpose is clear and distinct from 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns names and labels, which is useful but not extensive behavioral context beyond what annotations 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?

The description is extremely concise (two sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and outcomes efficiently.

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 list operation with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, return values, and use case.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description is concise and doesn't need to add parameter info; baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 it lists all SObject types in Salesforce, specifying it returns object names and labels. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like sf_query or sf_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?

The description explicitly says 'Use to discover queryable objects,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, which would elevate it further.

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 safety (readOnly, idempotent). Description adds that it returns matching records with all requested fields, which is useful behavioral context. 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?

Two sentences with no waste. First sentence states purpose, second provides critical guidance. 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?

With an output schema present and only one parameter, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, what it returns, and how to use it effectively. Complete for this tool's 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 a clear description of the 'query' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter 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?

Clearly states 'Query Salesforce records using SOQL' with a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from siblings like sf_describe and sf_search by mentioning SOQL and returning records with all requested fields.

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 advises 'Use sf_describe first to learn available fields', providing clear sequential guidance. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but strongly implies proper 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that results come from multiple object types, but does not disclose traits like result limits, pagination, or performance considerations. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource. No redundant words or fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose: defining the action and specifying usage scope.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's domain (Salesforce objects) and purpose (broad keyword search). It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the need for correct SOSL syntax, but the schema examples compensate. Overall, it is adequate for a read-only, idempotent tool with good annotations.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, including examples. The description's mention of 'keyword search' aligns with the schema's SOSL description but adds little new meaning. Baseline 3 is correct as the schema already documents the parameter well.

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 searches across Salesforce objects by keyword and returns matching records from multiple object types. It specifies 'broad keyword searches', which helps distinguish from more targeted tools like sf_query. However, it does not explicitly mention that it uses SOSL, which would further differentiate from SOQL-based 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 provides minimal usage guidance: 'Use for broad keyword searches.' It does not specify when not to use this tool (e.g., for structured queries use sf_query) or mention alternatives. No explicit exclusions or context for choosing this over 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?

Annotations already indicate the tool is non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds that it returns success status, but does not disclose potential errors (e.g., record not found) or permission requirements. It does not contradict 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 two sentences long, starts with the primary action, and provides only essential information. No unnecessary words or 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?

For a simple update tool with clear parameters and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the main purpose and return value, though it could mention error handling or idempotency implications. The output schema likely covers return details.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description reiterates 'object type and field values' but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. The examples in the schema provide additional context, but the description itself does not enhance understanding.

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

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

The description clearly identifies the action (update), the resource (existing Salesforce record by ID), and the required inputs (object type and field values). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sf_create_record and sf_delete_record by explicitly stating 'update an existing record'.

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

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

The description implies when to use the tool (to update an existing record), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide context on prerequisites like record existence or field validation. No alternatives are mentioned, though the sibling names hint at other operations.

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?

Goes beyond annotations by detailing limitations (SMS cap, webhook failure auto-disable), supported types, and account requirements. 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, but the description is somewhat lengthy. Each sentence adds value, though a tighter structure could improve 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?

Covers purpose, parameters, delivery, and return value. Lacks details on error handling or duplicate behavior, but annotations partially compensate.

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?

Adds significant meaning over the input schema with examples for each subscription type and detailed descriptions of delivery channels (including webhook signing secret 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?

Clearly states it creates a proactive monitoring subscription and returns a subscription ID. Distinguishes from siblings like list_subscriptions and unsubscribe.

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

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

Provides clear context about required OAuth account and delivery options, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool compared to alternatives (e.g., list_subscriptions).

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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds valuable context: it returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shapes, drawn from the live catalog, and explains that calling with no arguments gives a full spread while a topic focuses results.

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 (about 6 sentences) and front-loaded with key user intents. Every sentence adds meaningful information, with no redundancy or 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (category-bucketed example questions with tool+argument shapes) and usage scenarios. It covers all necessary context for this simple, single-parameter 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 well-described optional 'topic' parameter listing allowed values. The description reinforces this with examples and adds usage guidance (e.g., 'Call with no arguments for the full spread'), providing modest additional 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 starts with multiple user intents (e.g., 'What can I ask Pipeworx?', 'what is Pipeworx good for?') and clearly states it is the onboarding entry point that returns category-bucketed example questions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools by focusing on suggesting questions rather than answering them.

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 this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities, etc.).' This provides clear when-to-use and references alternative 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 behavioral traits beyond annotations: deactivates rather than deletes, and preserves historical events. 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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states action and constraint; the second explains the effect. Perfectly front-loaded.

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

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

No output schema, but the description covers the essential behavior. Missing return value info, but given the low complexity, it is still fairly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and already describes the 'id' parameter as 'returned by subscribe.' The description adds no new information 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 'Cancel a subscription by id,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' 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 ownership enforcement ('you can only cancel your own subscriptions') and clarifies the effect (deactivation vs deletion), providing 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 already provide read-only, open-world, idempotent hints. Description adds significant behavioral context: returns verdict types (confirmed, refuted, etc.), structured form, actual value with citation, percent delta, and notes version/domain limitation. 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?

Description is concise yet comprehensive. Front-loaded with key phrases and examples. Every sentence provides necessary information 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?

Given the tool's complexity (claim verification), minimal parameters, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It covers domain, usage, output structure, and limitations. No output schema needed as the description explains return values.

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 the single parameter 'claim'. Description adds value by providing multiple natural-language examples and clarifying the expected format. Exceeds the baseline of 3.

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

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

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification. It provides specific verbs (validate/verify/fact check) and defines the resource (company-financial claims). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it replaces multiple 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: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' Also specifies supported domain (company-financial claims). Does not explicitly mention when not to use, 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.