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

Annotations already signal readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: parallel tool routing, findings packet composition, gaps[] for unanswered facets, contradictions[] scanning, citation fetchability guarantees, excerpting behavior, and expected latency of 15-60s up to ~90s. It even discloses account and paid-plan requirements.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the account requirement and the sibling alternative. Some depth behavior is repeated between the schema and the prose, and the many clauses make it dense, but every section delivers actionable information for a complex tool.

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 fully documents the return shape: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citations, hop fields, gaps[], and contradictions[]. It also covers auth, latency, source scope, and when to prefer ask_pipeworx, leaving no critical decision or invocation detail unaddressed.

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 goes beyond the schema by linking depth:'thorough' to a paid plan, explaining that standard recovers gaps and thorough chases leads, and clarifying that the question can be broad and multi-part. This adds practical meaning beyond the enum descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources' with decomposition and parallel routing to 5,724 tools. It also explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search and distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx and news-focused siblings.

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 questions', 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx', and 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'. These exclusions name the exact alternative tool and the conditions that select it.

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