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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: account/paywall requirements, gap recovery and contradiction scans, semantic excerpting rather than head-truncation, fetchable citation URIs, and latency expectations of 15-90s. There is no contradiction with the 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 densely informative and front-loaded with the critical account requirement and fallback tool. Every major claim earns its place, though some depth-value details and contradiction-scan behavior are restated from the schema, creating mild redundancy. It is structured well, but not perfectly concise.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains the return packet contents, gaps[] and contradictions[] fields, citation_uri behavior, hop field, latency, authentication, and when not to use the tool. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect in return.

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 schema already documents both parameters well; the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond that by clarifying the practical meaning of depth levels—standard recovers gaps, thorough chases leads—and by confirming broad/multi-part questions are intended. It adds useful nuance even though the schema already carries strong parameter 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources' in ONE call, and explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search. It also explains how it works (decomposes question into facets, routes to 5,743 tools in parallel), which strongly differentiates it from siblings like ask_pipeworx.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: it says an account is required, tells users to use ask_pipeworx if not signed in, recommends deep_research for broad/multi-part structured-data questions, and explicitly prefers ask_pipeworx for breaking news or colloquial current-news topics. It also names alternatives for single lookups, making the selection decision unambiguous.

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