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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses a detailed behavioral contract: it "never invented" gaps, returns verbatim evidence with confidence/source/fetched_at, provides stable pipeworx:// citations that are always fetchable, includes contradictions[] on standard/thorough, semantically excerpts large records, and gives latency expectations. This exceeds what annotations alone would provide and aligns with them.

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 information-dense: account requirements, fallback routing, source scope, output packet fields, depth modes, citation guarantees, and latency all appear without fluff. It is front-loaded with the auth constraint and safe fallback before diving into mechanics, and each sentence earns its place.

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 present, the description carries the full burden of explaining return semantics, and it does: findings packet fields, gaps[], contradictions[], hop, citation_uri, and fetchability guarantees. It also covers authentication, sibling routing, depth behavior, latency, and source scope—sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in context.

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 already provides detailed semantics for both parameters—especially depth, which is fully described in terms of hops, contradictions, and paid tier. The description mostly restates depth behavior and adds only latency and the multi-step-resolution consequence, so it clears the baseline but does not substantially extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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 specific verb and resource: "Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources" delivered "in ONE call." It also describes the decomposition and parallel-routing pipeline and explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, so an agent can differentiate it 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: "Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data," with examples. It also names exclusions and alternatives: "If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead" and "For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead," plus the paid-plan constraint for depth="thorough."

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