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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: mandatory account with paid tier for 'thorough', latency expectations (15-90s), parallel routing to 5,743 tools, explicit gaps[] instead of invented answers, resolvable pipeworx:// citations, semantic excerpting of large records, and contradictions[] for 'standard'/'thorough'. 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 information-dense and front-loads the critical account requirement, but it is quite long and partially repeats details already present in the schema's depth enum (e.g., gap recovery, contradictions[]). For a two-parameter tool, several sentences could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 covers the return contract: findings packet structure (evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at), gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and citation_uri resolvability. It also addresses prerequisites, limitations for current-news topics, latency, and alternatives — nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is 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 coverage is 100% and the depth enum is already richly described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds selection-relevant context not in the schema — 'thorough' requires a paid plan and the associated latency range per depth — which helps an agent choose the right parameter value. The 'question' parameter gains no new syntax but its broad/multi-part suitability is reinforced.

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 action ('research') and a specific resource ('Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and sibling ask_pipeworx. It also describes the internal mechanism (decomposing questions into facets and routing to parallel tools), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use for broad/multi-part structured-data questions, prefer ask_pipeworx for single lookups or breaking/current-news topics, and switch to ask_pipeworx entirely if not signed in. It names alternatives and ties them to concrete conditions, leaving little to inference.

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