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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: auth tier gating (paid plan for "thorough"), 15-90s latency bounds, the findings-packet shape (verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + pipeworx:// citation), explicit gaps[] with a "never invented" honesty guarantee, contradictions[] scanning, and semantic excerpting rather than head-truncation. This is a rich behavioral disclosure.

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 critical auth gate and sibling routing, and most sentences carry content. However, it runs long and has a structural splice: "For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead" is followed abruptly by "Second-hop iteration: depth:"standard"..." with no transition, and the depth-tier mechanics partly duplicate the depth parameter's schema description.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke correctly: auth prerequisites, tier gating, latency expectations, return packet structure, failure semantics (gaps[]), citation resolvability, and scope boundaries. Minor absences like rate limits are acceptable at this complexity level.

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 earns extra by disclosing that "thorough" requires a paid plan and by tying depth choice to latency and hop behavior, which the schema enum alone does not convey. "question" needs no elaboration beyond the schema.

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 1,517 STRUCTURED data sources in ONE call." It distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx within the opening sentences, so an agent can tell exactly what domain this covers and why the tool exists.

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 routing rules: "If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead," "Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data," and "For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead." There is no ambiguity about when to prefer this over the closest sibling.

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