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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses auth requirements and paid tiers, parallel tool routing, the findings packet (verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at), gaps[] behavior without fabrication, hop-field/citation_uri semantics, contradictions[] for standard/thorough, excerpting behavior, and 15-90s latency. No contradiction 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 information-dense: account requirements, alternative tools, output shape, gaps, exclusions, citation resolvability, and latency all earn their place. Important constraints are front-loaded (account requirement first, then alternatives). Parentheticals and bolding make it scannable, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 must explain return values and does so thoroughly: findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and excerpting behavior. Auth prerequisites, latency expectations, depth semantics, and sibling routing are all covered; an agent has enough to call the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description adds valuable nuance: quick is single-hop without contradictions, standard adds gap recovery + contradictions, thorough adds lead-chasing, and broad/multi-part questions are explicitly supported. Some of the depth detail overlaps with the schema enum description, keeping this at a 4.

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 specific verb and resource: 'grounded multi-source research' across 1,497 structured data sources in one call, with explicit decomposition into facets. It clearly distinguishes itself from open-web search and names ask_pipeworx as the alternative for single lookups, so an agent can differentiate it from 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and explicit when-not-to-use conditions ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx'). It also covers the account/auth prerequisite: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead.'

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