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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints, the description richly discloses behavior: it returns a findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, and pipeworx:// citations; it reports gaps[] honestly rather than inventing answers; standard/thorough return contradictions[]; large records are semantically excerpted; and latency expectations are given. This is substantial context beyond 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 front-loaded with the most critical information: account requirement, fallback tool, and what it is NOT. It covers many necessary caveats for a complex tool without extreme bloat, though some depth details are restated from the schema and a few clauses are dense.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values and behavior, and it does so thoroughly: findings packet shape, gaps[], contradictions[], citation_uri semantics, hop field, excerpting, auth tiers, latency, and limitations on un-cataloged topics. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the question field accepts broad/multi-part natural language ("decomposition is the point"), noting depth:"thorough" requires a paid plan, and tying depth levels to expected latency (15-60s, thorough up to ~90s). It doesn't fully compensate for the absence of an output schema, but it enriches parameter understanding.

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 Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources." It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and names the sibling alternative ask_pipeworx, so an agent can tell it apart immediately.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: "Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data," and explicit when-not-to-use alternatives: "For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx" and "For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS ... prefer ask_pipeworx." It also handles auth-based routing with "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.