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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, it discloses auth requirements and paid tiers, parallel facet routing, the findings-packet shape with gaps[], the hop/citation_uri semantics, contradictions[], semantic excerpting, and expected latency. No statement conflicts 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?

Front-loaded with the auth caveat and alternative tool, then layers behavior, output, and performance details. It is dense and nearly all sentences earn their place, though the 'one call' idea is expressed more than once and the single paragraph is long.

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?

For a complex 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, how citations behave, failure/gap handling, auth prerequisites, alternative routing, and runtime expectations. An agent has enough to decide, call, and interpret results 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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: 'thorough' requires a paid plan, standard/thorough return contradictions, and latency differs by depth; it also gives examples of the broad multi-part questions suited to the question parameter.

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 action ('Grounded multi-source research') over a concrete resource ('Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources') and explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx for single lookups. This makes it easy for an agent to select it over the sibling research/query tools.

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 an explicit condition for not using it ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead') and explicit use cases ('Best for broad/multi-part questions... For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'). The depth-tier guidance further clarifies which plan each mode needs.

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