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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds behavior beyond that by detailing what the tool returns (category-bucketed example questions with tool+argument shape), that it draws from a live catalog of thousands of tools, and that it can be called with no arguments or a topic. 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 natural language queries, then a concise purpose statement, return description, parameter guidance, and usage recommendation. Every sentence serves a clear function, and the structure flows logically from 'what' to 'how' to 'when'.

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 (one optional param, no output schema), the description is fully complete: it explains the return format, invocation modes, the meaning of the topic parameter, and the intended use case. It also situates the tool among related meta-tools, which is valuable in the broader context.

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

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

Schema has 100% coverage already, including a description of the `topic` parameter and the behavior of omitting it. The description adds example values and phrases the parameter in terms of 'focus', but this is mostly redundant with the schema and does not provide significant 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?

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 uses specific verbs ('Returns', 'Use this FIRST') and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by positioning itself as the starting point for agents unfamiliar with Pipeworx.

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

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools.' It also names alternatives (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities) and explains the optional topic parameter for focused vs. full-spread queries.

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