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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it returns category-bucketed examples from a live catalog, supports optional topic filtering, and serves an onboarding role. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

The description is long but front-loaded with sample queries that aid intent matching. Each part serves a purpose, though the opening list of example phrasings is slightly redundant and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Since no output schema exists, the description adequately explains the return value structure (category-bucketed examples with tool + argument shapes) and the parameter behavior (omit vs topic focus). For a simple one-parameter tool, it covers all necessary 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 input schema covers the sole parameter with 100% completeness, including the omit-for-spread behavior. The description provides examples ('finance', 'pharma', 'betting') but essentially reiterates the schema's own description, adding minimal new 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?

The description clearly states the tool is the onboarding entry point for discovering what Pipeworx can do, returning category-bucketed example questions with the exact tool and argument shape. It distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Use this FIRST' and referencing meta-tools like ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, and compare_entities.

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

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

Explicitly instructs to use this FIRST when uncertain about Pipeworx capabilities or to learn how to call meta-tools. This implies when not to use it (when you already know what to ask) and names alternatives (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities), giving clear context and exclusions.

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