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

Even with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description goes well beyond them: it discloses parallel facet routing, gap recovery hops, contradictions scanning, confidence/source/fetched_at fields, pipeworx:// citations, never-invented gaps, timing expectations, and paid-tier limits. This gives an agent a detailed model of what the call will actually do.

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 and dense, but almost every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity: account requirements, alternatives, behavior, timing, and output shape are all covered. It is front-loaded with the critical sign-in gate, though a bit sprawling and could be tightened.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates: it explains the findings packet, gaps[], contradictions[], citations, hop fields, excerpting behavior, latency windows, and prerequisites. An agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly and to interpret the result.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'quick' is single-hop, 'standard' re-angles unanswered facets, and 'thorough' chases leads in a full iterative hop. It also clarifies that broad/multi-part questions are expected and that decomposition is the tool's purpose.

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 verb ('research') and resource ('Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources'), and sharply distinguishes itself from open-web search and from single-lookup tools. It also gives concrete example questions and contrasts with ask_pipeworx, so an agent can reliably tell what this tool is for.

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?

It explicitly says when NOT to use it ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead') and when it is preferred ('Best for broad/multi-part questions'). It also names the alternative for single lookups, so the agent gets clear routing guidance rather than having to infer.

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