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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: authentication requirement, structured-only scope, parallel tool routing, and the findings-packet format with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, stable citation, and explicit gaps for unanswered facets. These details complement the read-only/idempotent annotations and do not contradict them.

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 core information is dense and useful, but the description repeats the exact sentence 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead' dozens of times, severely inflating the text and obscuring the signal. One mention would have sufficed; this is a major structural flaw.

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?

Despite the repetition, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context: account tier, scope, decomposition behavior, output packet fields, and gap handling. It gives enough for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect, though an output schema or latency info would have made it fully complete.

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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters (question and depth with enum meanings), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the question can be broad/multi-part and that the thorough depth is paid, providing modest extra value beyond the schema.

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 action: grounded multi-source research across 1517 structured data sources in one call, with facet decomposition and parallel routing. It explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search and with ask_pipeworx for single lookups, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says this is best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, and instructs agents to use ask_pipeworx instead for single lookups or when not signed in. It also flags that depth:'thorough' requires a paid plan. This is clear when/when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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