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

Even with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint already present, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it never invents answers, returns explicit gaps[], surfaces contradictions[] for standard/thorough, semantically excerpts records, guarantees citations are fetchable, and gives latency expectations. It also discloses the account/paid-plan requirement, which is critical operational context beyond the 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 every sentence earns its place: auth requirement, alternative, scope, mechanism, output shape, gaps, citations, excerpting, and latency. It is front-loaded with the most important constraint (account required) and structured so an agent can quickly extract the selection criteria.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it describes the findings packet fields, citation format, gap behavior, contradiction behavior, depth semantics, and expected latency. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool, or to know what it will get back, 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters well, including the depth enum's exact behavior and the paid nature of 'thorough', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds some operational color around latency and paid tiers, but it does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Grounded multi-source research') over a defined resource ('Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources') and clearly distinguishes the tool from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx. It also gives concrete examples of the kind of broad/multi-part questions it is for, so an agent can immediately tell what is and is not this tool's job.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use it for broad/multi-part structured-data questions, but use ask_pipeworx for a single lookup and use ask_pipeworx if not signed in. It names the exact alternative tool and the conditions that should route the agent to it.

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