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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: account and paid-tier requirements, parallel decomposition, gap reporting with a never-invented guarantee, fetchable citation URIs, contradiction detection, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. There is no contradiction with 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 dense and front-loaded with the most critical constraint, the account requirement. There is some redundancy with the depth enum schema and repeated 'use ask_pipeworx' guidance, but given the tool's complexity, the length is mostly justified.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully specifies the findings packet contents, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, citation_uri semantics, excerpting behavior, and latency. An agent has enough context to call the tool and interpret its results 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds meaningful nuance for depth—paid thorough tier, gap recovery versus lead chasing, contradictions scan—and clarifies that question should be broad/multi-part, which goes beyond the baseline.

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 names a specific operation—grounded multi-source research over Pipeworx's 1517 structured data sources—and explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search. It also contrasts with ask_pipeworx for single lookups, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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 routing rules: use ask_pipeworx if not signed in, for single lookups, and for breaking/current-news topics; use deep_research for broad multi-part structured-data questions. It also clarifies depth-level tradeoffs, which is strong when-to-use guidance.

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