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

Discloses far beyond annotations: account requirement and paid tier, parallel decomposition and routing, return packet shape (verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + pipeworx:// citation + gaps[]), contradictions[] at standard/thorough, latency expectations, semantic excerpting behavior, and the guarantee that gaps are never invented. Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true) are fully consistent with this picture of a non-mutating multi-hop research tool.

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?

Long but every clause earns its place for a tool with this complexity. Critical constraints are front-loaded (account requirement, alternative tool), and the internal multi-hop mechanics are compressed into parentheticals and semicolons rather than sprawl. Slightly dense, but justified; a 5 would require tighter phrasing without losing information.

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?

Complete for a two-parameter research tool with rich annotations and no output schema. Covers auth prerequisites, depth-specific behavior, output format, failure semantics (gaps[] rather than invented answers), citation fetchability, and latency expectations. No externally observable behavior needed for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does add marginal nuance: depth tiers map to facet counts and hop behavior, and 'thorough' requires a paid plan. That adds value beyond the schema but is not essential, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: deep multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1,517 structured data sources via 5,798 tools in parallel. Explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search, tells the agent it is NOT a single-lookup tool, and provides concrete example questions. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like ask_pipeworx and compare_entities without opening the schema.

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. Also provides when-not-to-use guidance: if not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead; for a single lookup, prefer ask_pipeworx. Names alternatives explicitly and gives the condition that selects each.

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