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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial detail: account/tier requirements, parallel facet routing, findings packet fields, gaps[] and contradictions[], semantic excerpting instead of head-truncation, citation_uri availability caveats, and latency expectations. It clearly communicates what the tool returns and how it behaves beyond the annotation hints.

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 front-loaded with the account gate and fallback tool, and it remains densely informative. However, it repeats the ask_pipeworx routing guidance three times in slightly different forms, which inflates length without adding proportional value.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains return semantics: findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citations, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and semantic excerpting. It also covers authentication, tier limitations, latency, and the distinction from ask_pipeworx, making it complete for a complex research tool.

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% and the depth schema already describes facets, hops, paid thorough tier, and contradictions[] scans, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats much of that and adds latency expectations and example questions, but it does not materially extend parameter-level meaning 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?

Description states a specific operation: grounded multi-source research over Pipeworx's structured data sources, with decomposition and parallel routing. It explicitly contrasts with open-web search and with ask_pipeworx for single lookups, making the tool's identity clear relative to 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data'), when-not-to-use guidance ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'), and alternate routing for signed-out users, lower tiers, and no-citation Q&A. It also states the account and paid-depth prerequisites, so an agent knows exactly which conditions select this tool.

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