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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds rich detail without contradicting them: it returns verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, gaps[], contradictions[], and resolvable pipeworx:// citation URIs. It also discloses latency expectations, semantic excerpting of large records, the never-invented gap behavior, and depth-dependent hop behavior. This goes well beyond the 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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema. It front-loads the critical account requirement, then moves from what the tool does, to alternatives, to output semantics, to performance expectations. There is no filler or tautology.

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 and a rich behavioral surface, the description covers the return packet, citation resolvability, gap and contradiction semantics, depth-dependent behavior, time expectations, and auth requirements. An agent has enough information to select the tool, set the depth parameter, and understand what the response will contain. Nothing critical 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?

The schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, with 100% description coverage, so the description carries little additional per-parameter burden. It adds practical context like latency expectations tied to depth, but the depth semantics and paid-requirement details already appear in the enum descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific action and resource: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1506 structured data sources, with decomposition and parallel routing. It also explicitly contrasts the tool with open-web search and names ask_pipeworx as the alternative for other use cases. This cleanly differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 conditions: an account is required, 'thorough' depth needs a paid plan, and unsigned-in users should use ask_pipeworx. It also provides use-case guidance: best for broad/multi-part structured-data questions, while single lookups and breaking/current-news topics should go to ask_pipeworx. This is strong when-to-use versus alternative guidance.

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