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. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: explicit gaps[] rather than invented answers, contradictions[] on standard/thorough, semantic excerpting of large records, stable fetchable citation_uri, no hallucination, and expected latency of 15-90 seconds. This is far more than annotations alone provide.

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 well-organized, front-loaded with the account caveat and sibling alternatives, and each major behavior gets a clear sentence. It is long, however, and somewhat repetitious with the schema's detailed depth descriptions and the earlier in-one-call point, so a little trimming would make it sharper.

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 complex tool with no output schema, this description covers essentially everything needed for correct invocation: output packet shape, citation semantics, gap/contradiction behavior, depth-level differences, auth/tier requirements, and latency expectations. There is no obvious missing guidance that an agent would need.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the depth enum is already well-described. The description adds non-schema invocation context: thorough requires a paid plan, signed-in status gates usability, and it gives concrete natural-language question examples for the question parameter. It does not introduce fundamentally new per-parameter format details, but the added auth/tier context is actionable.

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 precise verb and resource: grounded multi-source research over Pipeworx's structured data sources in one call, explicitly noting it is NOT open-web search. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx for single lookups and ask_pipeworx_beta for breaking/current news, so an agent can immediately tell them apart.

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 when-to-use guidance: best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, use ask_pipeworx instead for a single lookup, and use ask_pipeworx_beta for breaking/current news. It also specifies the account/tier prerequisite and the fallback to ask_pipeworx if not signed in, leaving little to inference.

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