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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Beyond that, the description discloses substantial behavioral traits: the account/payment requirement, 15–60s (up to ~90s) latency, gap recovery and contradictions[] behavior, 'never invented' gaps, semantically excerpted records, the hop field, and that citation_uri is only present when resolvable. This far exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 every sentence carries distinct information, and it is logically front-loaded: account gate first, then core function, then alternatives, then depth semantics, then output format, then timing. The playful phrasing ('re-angles unanswered gaps', 'chases the best leads') is a minor stylistic flourish but does not obscure the technical meaning. Length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: 'findings packet' with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, stable pipeworx:// citation, explicit gaps[], contradictions[], and citation resolvability. Auth, timing, alternatives, depth behavior, and non-invention guarantees are all covered. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents question (natural language, broad/multi-part) and depth (facet counts, hops). The description adds genuinely non-obvious parameter semantics: thorough requires a paid plan, timing expectations per depth tier, and that deeper depths recover gaps and flag contradictions. This is meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources' in ONE call, and explicitly distinguishes itself from 'open-web search'. It gives concrete example questions ('compare X and Y's regulatory + financial exposure') and contrasts with the sibling ask_pipeworx, so an agent can clearly tell what this tool is and is not.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') with examples, and explicit when-not-to-use with the alternative named: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead' and 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'. No inference is required.

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