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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it returns example questions with tool+argument shape from the live catalog, supports optional topic filtering, and describes the fallback behavior when no arguments are passed.

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-structured, front-loading user-phrase triggers and then delivering purpose, return content, and usage. Each sentence earns its place; the length is justified by the tool's onboarding role and the need to explain the categorized output and optional filtering.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (category-bucketed example questions with exact tool+argument shape) and how to invoke it. Combined with the clear annotations and complete parameter documentation, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single `topic` parameter, with an enum-like description. The description adds value by giving concrete examples ('finance', 'pharma', 'betting') and explaining the omission behavior ('Omit for a cross-category spread'), which goes beyond the schema's static text.

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: it is the onboarding entry point that returns category-bucketed example questions with exact tool and argument shapes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as the first tool to use when unfamiliar with Pipeworx, and its scope ('what can I ask?') is unique.

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 guidelines are provided: 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you.' It also explains how to call it with or without the `topic` parameter, and mentions learning meta-tools, which clarifies when to prefer this over alternatives like ask_pipeworx.

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