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

The annotations already carry read-only/open-world/idempotent safety, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: account requirement, latency windows (15-60s, up to ~90s for thorough), a guarantee never to invent via explicit gaps[], contradictions[] only in standard/thorough, semantic excerpting rather than head-truncation, and citations that are always resolvable. No contradiction between description and 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?

Information-dense and well front-loaded — the most decision-critical fact (ACCOUNT REQUIRED + fallback tool) appears first, and nearly every sentence carries operational weight. However, it is a single wall of prose with no structural formatting, and it partially repeats depth semantics already present in the schema enum, so a tighter structure would be an improvement.

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 despite having no output schema. The description covers auth prerequisites, sibling routing, cost/tier constraints, return packet shape (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], contradictions[], hop), honesty guarantees, and latency. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether, when, or how to invoke this tool 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 description adds non-duplicative decision info: it ties the depth enum to latency and the paid tier, clarifies that the question parameter tolerates broad/multi-part phrasing, and surfaces the auth gate that affects whether this tool is callable at all. Meaningful value beyond the schema, though the schema already documents hop/contradiction mechanics.

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+resource+scope: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 structured data sources in ONE call. Explicitly declares what it is NOT ('this is NOT open-web search') and names the sibling it is not ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'), so an agent can select it among 30+ siblings without inspecting schemas.

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?

Exceptionally explicit routing guidance. It names the exact alternative (ask_pipeworx) under two precise conditions ('If you are not signed in', 'For a single lookup'), supplies a best-for rule ('broad/multi-part questions over structured data'), and flags a pricing constraint (thorough needs a paid plan). No inference required.

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