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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: account/paid-plan requirements, 15-90s latency, gap/contradiction reporting, non-fabrication guarantee, fetchable citation_uri behavior, and semantic excerpting of large records. No annotation contradiction exists.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded with the account requirement and primary alternative, and no sentence is wasted. However, it is a long single block of text; bullet or labeled sections would improve scannability without adding length.

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, the description is remarkably complete: it covers authentication/tiers, result packet fields (evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citations, gaps, contradictions), latency, depth semantics, and when to route elsewhere. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although the schema has 100% coverage, the description goes well beyond it by explaining what the depth values actually do (quick/standard/thorough hops, gap recovery, contradictions scan) and by clarifying that question accepts broad multi-part natural language because 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?

States a specific, differentiated purpose: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call' with a clear verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from sibling ask_pipeworx by calling out the single-lookup case.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: best for broad/multi-part structured-data questions, use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, and prefer ask_pipeworx for breaking/current-news topics. It even handles the not-signed-in case and depth-tier decisions.

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