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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true): it explains the findings packet structure, explicit gaps[] with 'never invented', contradictions[] for standard/thorough, always-fetchable citation_uri behavior, semantic excerpting, multi-hop iteration, and expected latency (15-60s, up to ~90s). It also discloses the sign-in/paid-tier requirement. There is 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 dense and front-loaded with critical operational details (account requirement and fallback) before the core functionality. Every sentence conveys useful information, but the structure is somewhat sprawling—account guidance appears twice, and the long parenthetical on iteration details could be tightened. This is minor given the complexity, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 fully carries the burden of explaining return values, which it does in detail: findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and citation_uri behavior. It also covers prerequisites (sign-in), timing, limits (thorough requires paid plan), and the fallback sibling, leaving nothing an agent needs to call or interpret 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 description coverage is 100% with both parameters thoroughly documented in the input schema itself: `question` notes 'Broad/multi-part is fine — decomposition is the point,' and `depth` already enumerates quick/standard/thorough with defaults, paid status, and hop behavior. The tool description mostly restates this information and does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 highly specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources' that 'decomposes your question... routes each to the right one of 5,798 tools IN PARALLEL, and returns a findings packet.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search ('this is NOT open-web search') and from the single-lookup sibling ask_pipeworx, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and thorough: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead' gives a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use pair. It also names the fallback alternative when not signed in: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier.' This directly routes agents to the correct sibling under clear conditions.

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