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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: auth and tier requirements, latency expectations, the gap[] mechanism with a 'never invented' guarantee, contradictions[] for standard/thorough, always-fetchable citation_uri values, and semantic excerpting rather than head-truncation. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to set expectations.

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, and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded: account requirement, alternative tool, structured-data scope, and single-call nature. Some detail could be condensed, but nearly every sentence contributes behavior or routing guidance that is not captured elsewhere.

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 does so thoroughly: findings packet contents, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, citation_uri behavior, and expected latency. It also covers auth prerequisites and the alternative tool, so an agent has what it needs to decide whether and how to call this tool.

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 documents both parameters well, including the depth enum's behavioral differences. The description adds some useful context around paid access, latency, and when to use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, but it largely restates or complements the schema rather than substantially enriching parameter meaning.

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 and resource: it runs grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 structured data sources, decomposes questions into facets, routes to tools in parallel, and returns a findings packet. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool is and is not for.

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 auth-based routing rule ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'). It also flags that 'thorough' depth requires a paid plan.

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