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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description greatly enriches this: account/plan requirements, parallel decomposition, explicit gaps[] that are 'never invented,' contradictions[] for standard/thorough, semantic excerpting, resolvable pipeworx:// citation URIs, and expected latency ranges. It also clearly notes what happens for topics outside the structured catalog (mostly empty gaps). No annotation contradiction.

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 and dense, but nearly every clause adds distinct operational information: auth, source scope, alternatives, depth semantics, output shape, limitations, timing, and citation fetchability. It front-loads the account requirement and the key 'NOT open-web search' caveat. Some redundancy exists with the depth parameter schema, and the single-paragraph structure could be tightened, but overall it earns its length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the findings packet shape (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri), the gaps[] behavior, contradictions, hop mechanics, timing, and auth limitations. It gives the agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful behavioral nuance beyond the schema, especially for depth: 'quick=3 (single hop), standard=3... gap-recovery hop... contradictions[] scan, thorough=6... full iterative hop.' It also clarifies that the question parameter can be broad or multi-part, reinforcing the decomposition design.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call.' It also explicitly contrasts itself with sibling tools: 'this is NOT open-web search' and names ask_pipeworx as the alternative for single lookups and current-news topics. The agent can clearly distinguish deep_research from siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: best for 'broad/multi-part questions over structured data,' while single lookups and breaking/current-news should 'prefer ask_pipeworx.' It also specifies the account prerequisite and directs unsigned-in users to ask_pipeworx, plus explains depth-tier behavior for choosing standard vs thorough.

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