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

With annotations already covering read-only/idempotent safety, the description adds substantial behavioral context: account and plan gates, latency expectations, explicit gaps[] instead of invented findings, contradictions[], hop fields, fetchable citations, and semantic excerpting. Nothing contradicts 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 repeats 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead' dozens of times, adding zero information after the first occurrence. It is also a dense, unparagraphed block that opens with account requirements rather than the tool's core purpose, so it is neither appropriately sized nor front-loaded.

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?

Despite the redundancy, the substantive content is complete for a complex tool with no output schema: it specifies input question type, depth variants, return packet shape, citation semantics, gaps/contradictions behavior, and timing. An agent has what it needs to call and 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%, and the depth enum already documents facet counts, hops, and contradictions behavior. The description mostly restates those mechanics while adding latency and auth context, but it does not materially add parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage baseline applies.

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, differentiated purpose: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 structured data sources, explicitly 'NOT open-web search.' It names the sibling it is not ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead') and gives example query shapes to clarify the intended workload.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: best for broad or multi-part questions over structured data, and explicit exclusions for single lookups and unsigned-in users, directing them to ask_pipeworx. It also flags the paid-tier requirement for depth=thorough, helping an agent route correctly.

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