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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds critical context: auth requirements with tier limits, decomposition/parallel execution model, return packet contents (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation URI), explicit gaps[] that 'never invented,' contradictions[], semantic excerpting, and latency expectations (15-60s, ~90s for thorough). No contradictions with 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 dense; nearly every sentence carries operational info (auth, alternatives, mechanism, output format, timing). It is front-loaded with the account requirement and fallback, and the structure flows from prerequisites to behavior to performance. Minor redundancy like repeating the one-call/parallel point and ask_pipeworx routing twice keeps it from a 5.

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 thoroughly explains return values: findings packet fields, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, fetchable citation_uri, semantic excerpting. It also covers auth, expected latency, when to use alternatives, and the exact decomposition behavior, so an agent has enough information to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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 covers both parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra depth semantics: 'thorough' requires a paid plan, 'standard' re-angles unanswered gaps, 'thorough' chases leads, and both return contradictions[] — beyond the enum descriptions. It also clarifies that question takes natural language and decomposition is the point.

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 verb+resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources... Decomposes your question into focused facets, routes each to the right one of 5,798 tools IN PARALLEL, and returns a findings packet.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx for single lookups, so sibling differentiation is strong.

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 explicit routing: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead.' States it is 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' and clarifies 'this is NOT open-web search,' so the agent knows when not to use it.

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