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

Adds rich behavior beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: the tool never invents findings, returns explicit gaps[], decomposes questions into parallel facets, exposes depth-dependent hop and contradictions[] behavior, provides fetchable citation URIs only when available, and semantically excerpts long records. There is no contradiction with the 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 content is dense and information-rich, with account requirements and the key alternative front-loaded. However, it is one long, parenthetical-heavy paragraph that mixes auth, tool mechanics, output details, depth differences, citation guarantees, and timing; breaking it into scannable sections would make it materially easier for an agent to parse and apply.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description fully specifies the return contract: findings packet, verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], contradictions[], and the `hop` field. It also covers input expectations, auth requirements, latency, and limitations, so nothing essential is left to inference for this two-parameter 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful depth semantics beyond the schema: 'thorough' requires a paid plan, quick=3 facets, standard/thorough behavior is connected to gap recovery and contradictions[], and example question phrasings illustrate the `question` parameter. It slightly falls short of 5 because the schema already covers much of the enum behavior.

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 ... STRUCTURED data sources' with a defined output packet of findings. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from sibling ask_pipeworx, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 guidance: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data,' with concrete examples. It also names the alternative and the condition for switching: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead' and 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead.' Account/tier prerequisites are disclosed up front.

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