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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint:false. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: account/paid-plan requirements, latency ranges (15-60s, thorough up to ~90s), explicit gaps[] instead of invented answers, citation_uri only when resolvable, contradictions[] for standard/thorough, semantic excerpting of large records, and hop fields per finding. 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 dense, with each sentence adding a distinct fact (auth, scope, decomposition, return packet, gaps, citations, excerpting, latency). It is front-loaded with the account requirement and closest alternative, and it is organized logically. It could be tightened in places, but the complexity of the tool justifies the length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description itself must explain the return value: a findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop field. It also covers auth, constraints, latency, and alternatives exhaustively. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly appears 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema for the depth parameter: 'depth:"thorough" needs a paid plan', second-hop iteration behavior for standard vs thorough, and that deeper modes add contradiction scans. These enrich the schema's 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call' and explicitly differentiates it from open-web search. It also names sibling tools (ask_pipeworx) and clarifies what this tool is for versus them, so an agent can distinguish it without opening other definitions.

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/when-not-to-use guidance: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', and for breaking/current-news topics 'prefer ask_pipeworx' because deep_research returns empty gaps. It also handles auth-based routing by saying '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.