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

The description discloses behavioral details beyond the annotations: account requirements, expected latency (15-60s, thorough ~90s), the findings packet structure (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citations), gaps[] behavior (never invented), contradictions[] availability, and semantic excerpting of large records. Annotations already signal read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description enriches this with concrete operational detail.

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 information-dense, with each sentence contributing distinct value (account requirements, scope, process, output format, performance expectations, edge cases). It is front-loaded with the most critical operational constraint (account required) and the alternative to use if not signed in. Slightly dense but justified given the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is remarkably complete: it covers prerequisites, expected latency, output structure, failure transparency (gaps[]), contradiction handling, and when to choose alternatives. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 both parameters are documented. The description adds meaningful depth beyond the schema by explaining the practical implications of depth choices (quick=3 facets, standard adds gap-recovery and contradictions, thorough is paid and iterative) and how question decomposition works. This exceeds baseline schema coverage, though it doesn't add syntax-level detail for the question parameter 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 clearly states the tool's function: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's structured data sources, decomposing questions into facets and routing to tools in parallel. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and names what it is NOT, making it identifiable among siblings.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when to use an alternative (use ask_pipeworx instead if not signed in; for a single lookup use ask_pipeworx). It also notes depth considerations, including paid plan requirements for thorough.

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