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

Adds extensive behavior beyond the annotations: auth requirement (free signup, paid thorough tier), latency expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s), groundedness guarantees (explicit gaps[], never invented), a citation contract (citation_uri present only when fetchable), parallel decomposition across 5,798 tools, contradiction detection, and semantic excerpting behavior. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, or idempotentHint=true.

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 a dense single paragraph with heavy parenthetical asides and some redundancy with the schema's depth description (both recount the 3/3/6 facet semantics and contradictions behavior). It is appropriately front-loaded with the account requirement and fallback tool, and nearly every sentence carries information, but the wall-of-text format and awkward asides (e.g., 'depth:"thorough" needs a paid plan') hurt scannability.

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 fully explains the return contract (findings packet: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field). It also covers latency, auth prerequisites, depth modes, fallback tool, and grounding behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool correctly is left unstated.

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 description earns a 4 by adding meaning beyond the schema: cost implications of depth (paid tier required), latency per depth level, and question-suitability guidance with examples. The depth semantics are partly redundant with the schema's enum description, but the operational context (cost, timing, iteration behavior) is genuinely additive.

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 over Pipeworx's structured data sources in a single call, explicitly contrasting itself with open-web search. It differentiates from siblings early ('this is NOT open-web search', 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead') and gives two concrete example questions. An agent can clearly separate this from ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, and entity_profile.

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 concrete examples, plus explicit when-not-to guidance: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier.' This is textbook routing guidance with named alternatives and conditions.

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