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

Beyond the safe-read annotations, the description discloses account/plan requirements, 15-60s latency (up to ~90s for thorough), gap reporting with gaps[], contradiction scanning, hop fields, fetchable citation URIs, and semantic excerpting of large records. It also states 'never invented' explicitly. No contradiction with the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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 dense; nearly every sentence carries a distinct behavioral, usage, or output requirement. It front-loads the account prerequisite and fallback tool before the core explanation. A slight amount of redundancy around 'one call' and the contradiction scan keeps it from a 5.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return content, and it does: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, stable citation, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop/citation_uri fields. It also covers auth, latency, depth behavior, and a fallback path, leaving no critical gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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's depth description already documents quick/standard/thorough, hop counts, gap recovery, and contradiction scans, so the baseline applies. The description adds some operational color (latency, paid plan) but does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond what the input schema states.

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 verb-plus-resource ('Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources') and explains the core behavior: decomposes the question into facets, routes them to 5,798 tools in parallel, and returns a findings packet. It explicitly separates itself from open-web search and from siblings by saying 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead.'

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and when-not-to-use guidance ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'). It also specifies the signed-in prerequisite and routes unsigned-in users to ask_pipeworx, which is actionable.

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