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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds far more: account and paid-plan requirements, parallel decomposition and routing, findings packet fields, gaps[] for unanswered facets, a promise never to invent findings, contradictions[] on standard/thorough, citation fetchability, semantic excerpting, and latency 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 it front-loads essential gating information (account required, free alternative) and nearly every sentence carries substantive detail. The nested-parenthesis style and repeated comparisons to ask_pipeworx make it slightly less crisp than it could be, but it is still well organized.

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 compensates thoroughly: it enumerates the findings packet fields, explains citation_uri and hop, describes when gaps[] and contradictions[] appear, gives latency ranges, and explains semantic excerpting. An agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 100% schema coverage already documents both parameters, so the baseline is high. The description still adds useful semantics: depth:'thorough' requires a paid plan, standard adds a gap-recovery hop plus contradictions[], thorough adds an iterative lead-chasing pass, and broad/multi-part questions are explicitly acceptable.

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 is explicit: this is grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's structured data sources in ONE call, and it explicitly says it is NOT open-web search. It also distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx, making sibling differentiation clear.

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 provides two explicit routing rules: use ask_pipeworx when not signed in, and use ask_pipeworx for a single lookup. It also says deep_research is best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, and explains which depth tiers require what, so when-to-use guidance is unambiguous.

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