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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: latency windows (15-60s, up to ~90s), gaps[] with a 'never invented' honesty guarantee, contradictions[] for standard/thorough, resolvable citation_uri present only when fetchable, semantic excerpting 'not head-truncated,' and hop behavior per depth. Also discloses the paid-tier restriction on 'thorough.' No contradiction 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?

Critical constraint is front-loaded ('ACCOUNT REQUIRED...') and nearly every sentence carries unique information — no filler. However, related behaviors (hop, contradictions, excerpting) are scattered through one dense wall of parenthetical-laden text, and some depth semantics overlap with the schema's enum description. Appropriately sized for a complex tool, but structurally it could group related behaviors more tightly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values — and it does: findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and the guarantee that citations are always fetchable. Covers auth, cost, latency, failure behavior, parameter differences, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether or how to call it 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 value by tying depth values to account tiers ('thorough' needs a paid plan), latency expectations per depth, and the hop/citation behavior of the response ('Every finding carries a hop field and a citation_uri'), plus worked example phrasings for the question parameter. These go beyond the schema's enum descriptions without merely repeating them.

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: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call' with concrete source categories listed. Explicitly differentiates itself from open-web search ('this is NOT open-web search') and from the sibling ask_pipeworx, so an agent can tell them apart 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') with worked examples, and multiple when-not-to-use rules naming the alternative: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead,' 'For BREAKING or colloquial current-news... prefer ask_pipeworx,' and the auth-based routing rule 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead.' Nothing is left to inference.

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