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

Annotations already flag read-only/open-world/idempotent, and the description adds rich behavioral context on top: account and paid-tier requirements, latency expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s for thorough), an explicit no-hallucination guarantee ('explicit gaps[] ... never invented'), semantic excerpting of long records, contradictions[] scanning, and the citation_uri fetchability contract. Nothing contradicts the annotations; this is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the account gate and the fallback tool before the core behavior, and dense with information throughout. It is long, and the second-hop/depth paragraph partially overlaps the already-detailed depth enum descriptions in the schema — a minor redundancy — but the prose adds behavioral consequences (gap recovery, contradictions, latency) that the schema does not contain.

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 must explain return values, and it does: findings packet fields (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation), gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and citation_uri semantics. Combined with the detailed schema and safety annotations, nothing an agent needs to select, invoke, or interpret results is missing; only edge-case error behavior is unaddressed, which is minor at this level of coverage.

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 baseline is 3 — both question and depth are already documented in the input schema. The description adds value beyond that: example multi-part questions, the coupling of depth='thorough' to the paid plan, and per-depth latency, while corroborating the schema's depth semantics rather than repeating them verbatim.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call', with the mechanism (decomposes the question into facets, routes each to one of 5,798 tools in parallel) and the output shape (findings packet). It draws explicit boundaries — 'this is NOT open-web search' — and contrasts itself with ask_pipeworx for single lookups, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening any schema.

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 ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' with concrete examples), when-not-to ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'), and an auth-based routing rule ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier'). The named alternative is unambiguous and directly actionable.

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