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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: returns gaps[] for unanswered facets, never invents evidence, provides stable pipeworx:// citations, includes contradictions[] for standard/thorough, semantically excerpts large records, and states expected latency (15-60s, up to ~90s for thorough). This is rich, non-obvious context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 information-dense, and the most critical prerequisites (account, payment, alternative tool) are front-loaded. The prose is somewhat run-on and could be better organized, but nearly every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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 compensates by explaining the findings packet, evidence fields, citations, gaps, contradictions, semantic excerpting, latency, and source scope. For a complex research tool, an agent has enough context to select it, set expectations, and invoke it with the right depth.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by linking the depth parameter to plan/payment requirements and clarifying that the question parameter is meant for broad/multi-part natural language, reinforcing decomposition behavior. Not a 5 because the schema already carries most parameter-level meaning.

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 and resource: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1,540 structured data sources, decomposing questions into facets and routing them in parallel. It explicitly contrasts with open-web search and names the sibling for single lookups, making it easy to distinguish from ask_pipeworx and related tools.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when-not-to-use guidance (single lookup, unsigned-in users), and names the alternative: ask_pipeworx. Also clarifies account and paid-plan prerequisites for specific depths.

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