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

Goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) by disclosing account/plan requirements, latency expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s), the gap[] behavior ('never invented'), contradictions[] for standard/thorough, citation fetchability guarantees, and semantic excerpting for large records. No contradictions with 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?

The description is long but dense with operational essentials; every sentence contributes (auth, use case, mechanics, output, latency, gaps, citations). It is front-loaded with the account requirement and alternative. Some minor redundancy and odd punctuation (e.g., repeated em-dashes) prevent a 5, but the structure is clear and scannable.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no schema complexity, this description covers everything an agent needs: required auth, alternatives, input examples, depth semantics, output shape (findings packet with citations and gaps), latency, and error handling. No critical missing 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 covers both parameters 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: explains what 'depth' values actually do (quick=3 facets single hop, standard=3 with gap recovery, thorough=6 with iterative hop), clarifies the paid requirement for thorough, and gives example questions. This additional nuance justifies a 4.

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 ('researches') and resource ('Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources'), and explicitly differentiates from open-web search ('this is NOT open-web search'). Names alternative tools (ask_pipeworx) and specifies the best use case ('broad/multi-part questions over structured data'), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings 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' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead.' Also gives a concrete exclusion ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx') and clarifies that it is not open-web search. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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