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

Discloses account and paid-plan requirements, parallel execution, findings packet structure, gaps[] for unanswered facets, no-fabrication guarantee, contradictions[], latency expectations, semantic excerpting, and the fetchability of citation_uri. This goes far beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations and is fully consistent with 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?

Long but densely packed, with the account/auth caveat front-loaded and every substantive section earning its place. It loses a point because the depth behavior partially repeats the already-detailed schema description, creating mild redundancy.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, it thoroughly describes the return packet, expected latency, failure mode (empty gaps[] for uncataloged topics), and authentication requirements. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it 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%, and the depth parameter's schema already explains quick/standard/thorough behavior including gap-recovery and contradictions. The description adds minor context like 'multi-step questions resolve in one call' and example questions, but it mostly restates what the schema already documents.

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?

Explicitly states it performs grounded multi-source research over 1497 structured data sources in one call, decomposing questions and routing them to 5,724 tools. It clearly distinguishes itself from open-web search and names the sibling alternative ask_pipeworx, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and when-not-to-use guidance ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx'). It also covers auth-tier fallback and gives concrete example queries, so an agent can route correctly.

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