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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: parallel decomposition across 5,798 tools, finding packet contents with citations and gaps[], never-invented behavior, contradiction[] scans, semantic excerpting of large records, and expected latency (15-60s, up to ~90s for thorough). This is rich, accurate behavioral disclosure with no contradiction of 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 and information-dense, but nearly every sentence earns its place by conveying crucial routing, tier, latency, citation, and gap-handling behavior. It front-loads the account requirement, then the core value proposition, then use cases. It could be tightened slightly, but it is structured with clear signals and not padded with filler.

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 complexity, the description covers every major decision an agent needs: account/tier gating, when to use this vs ask_pipeworx, input semantics, output shape (findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citations, gaps[], contradictions[]), latency expectations, and how large records are handled. No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, and it does thoroughly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying the practical trade-offs of depth ('quick=3 single hop', 'standard' gap-recovery hop, 'thorough' full iterative hop) and by explaining that broad/multi-part questions in natural language are expected and fine. It doesn't add syntax-level detail, but the schema fully covers the parameters and the description enriches their semantics. A 4 is appropriate.

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 states a very specific verb+resource: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1,517 structured data sources in one call, explicitly distinguishing it from open-web search. It also names sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and defines its scope ('best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data'), so an agent can clearly tell it apart from siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance ('best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data'), explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'), and an account/tier prerequisite ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'). It also names alternatives directly and describes depth-tier behavior, so the agent knows exactly when to select this tool versus siblings.

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