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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it is not open-web search, it does not invent answers, it returns explicit gaps[], it returns contradictions[] at standard/thorough depths, large records are semantically excerpted, citations are stable pipeworpc:// URIs that are fetchable, and expected latency is provided. It also describes the multi-hop vs single-hop depth behavior. This far exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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; it front-loads the account requirement and the key differentiator (structured data, not open-web search). It covers behavior, outputs, latency, and gaps in a coherent flow. It earns its length because every sentence communicates a distinct behavioral fact. Slightly over-packed, but not wasteful.

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 research tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is highly complete: it covers input prerequisites (account), when to use it, what output format to expect (evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citations, gaps[], contradictions[]), latency expectations, and caveats about citation fetchability. The absence of an output schema makes this description essential, and it delivers all the necessary 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful context for the depth parameter by explaining what each depth does in terms of facets and hops, and it clarifies that the question parameter should be broad/multi-part since decomposition is the point. The description doesn't repeat schema details but adds value by explaining the behavioral meaning of depth, though the schema enum descriptions are already quite rich.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it performs grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's structured data sources in one call, decomposing a question into facets and routing to tools in parallel. It is distinguished from open-web search and from single-lookup alternatives like ask_pipeworx, which appear in sibling 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?

The description explicitly says when to use deep_research (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when not to: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead' and 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier.' This gives clear conditions and names the alternative tool.

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