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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is to add detail, and it does: it discloses parallel decomposition across 5,798 tools, the exact findings packet fields, gaps[] for unanswered facets, the never-invented guarantee, contradictions[], semantic excerpting of large records, and latency windows. No annotation is contradicted.

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 but every major clause carries operational value—account requirement, fallback tool, grounding, not-open-web, output schema, depth nuances, and latency. The most critical operational facts are front-loaded, though some depth details duplicate what the schema already states.

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 specifies what the agent will receive: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, stable pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and citation_uri. Auth requirements, latency, input constraints, and usage guidance are all present, so an agent can invoke and interpret results 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by giving expected latency per depth (15-60s, thorough up to ~90s), clarifying the paid plan requirement for 'thorough', and re-emphasizing that the question can be broad/multi-part because decomposition is the point. That is meaningful beyond the schema's existing text.

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?

States a specific verb ('research') and a specific resource ('Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources'), then explicitly differentiates itself from open-web search and from sibling ask_pipeworx. The description makes clear it is a multi-source research tool for broad/multi-part questions, giving the agent a decisive usage profile.

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?

Explicitly says to use ask_pipeworx instead when not signed in or for a single lookup, and identifies itself as best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data. It also gives example questions and a clear condition ('If you are not signed in') that makes the alternative selection unambiguous.

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