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

Annotations already signal readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds rich behavior beyond that: auth and paid-tier requirements, parallel decomposition, gap[] reporting, contradiction[] scanning, citation_uri only when fetchable, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. It also discloses that the tool is grounded in structured sources, not open-web search.

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 the length is mostly earned for a complex multi-step tool: auth, use cases, output shape, depth behavior, citation caveats, and latency. It is front-loaded with the prerequisite before the main explanation, though a couple of depth-related details are repeated across the description and schema.

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 burden of explaining return values, and it does: findings packet, confidence/source/fetched_at, citations, gaps[], contradictions[], and excerpt behavior. Combined with the annotations and rich input schema, an agent has everything needed to decide whether to call the tool and how to set expectations.

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 covers all 2 parameters (100%) with detailed depth semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description adds non-obvious details: 'thorough' requires a paid plan, the behavior of gap recovery and contradiction scans per depth, and the approximate latency profile. There is minor overlap with the schema but the added context justifies a 4.

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 ('Decomposes your question into focused facets, routes each to the right ... tools ... and returns a findings packet') over a specific resource (Pipeworx's 1517 structured data sources), and distinguishes itself from open-web search. It also explicitly contrasts with ask_pipeworx, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use advice: broad/multi-part questions over structured data, and an explicit alternative for single lookups ('use ask_pipeworx instead'). Also states the account prerequisite and routes unsigned-in users to ask_pipeworx, plus the paid threshold for the 'thorough' depth.

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