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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those: account/paywall requirements, latency expectations ('Expect 15-60s... up to ~90s'), that gaps[] are never invented, that citations are always fetchable, and that large records are semantically excerpted. This is rich behavioral disclosure consistent 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 long and dense, but almost every sentence adds unique value: account gating, alternatives, data-source scope, return packet, depth semantics, limitations, citations, excerpting, latency. It front-loads the most critical operational constraint (account required) and the primary alternative. Minor deduction for the single run-on paragraph, which could be better structured with breaks or bullets.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values—and it does comprehensively: 'verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + a stable pipeworx:// citation per finding, with explicit gaps[]' and 'contradictions[]' for standard/thorough. It also covers prerequisites, latency, limitations on current-news topics, and citation resolvability. Nothing needed 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds meaningful nuance by explaining what depth values do behaviorally—'standard' re-angles unanswered facets and 'thorough' chases leads—and by clarifying that the question can be broad/multi-part because decomposition is the point. This goes beyond the schema without duplicating all of it.

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 verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'this is NOT open-web search' and contrasting with ask_pipeworx for single lookups. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does and how it differs from nearby 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?

Usage guidance is explicit and thorough: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead,' 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx,' and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx.' It also explains when deep_research is best ('broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and when depth levels should be used. This fully answers when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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