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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: account/paywall gating, latency ranges (15-60s standard, up to ~90s thorough), the never-invents guarantee via explicit gaps[], citation_uri only present when resolvable, contradictions[] on standard/thorough, and semantic excerpting rather than head-truncation. It even qualifies the openWorldHint by clarifying this is structured-data research, NOT open-web search. Nothing contradicts 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 (~280 words) but dense, with the critical account gate and fallback alternative front-loaded in the first sentence. Each sentence carries substantive content for a tool with three depth tiers, auth requirements, and a complex output contract. It is slightly verbose and partially restates depth-tier behavior also present in the schema, but the structure is logical: prerequisites, mechanism, output, use cases, guarantees, timing.

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?

Without an output schema, the description takes on the full burden of return-shape disclosure and succeeds: findings packet contents (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation), gaps[], contradictions[], and citation resolvability are all enumerated. Combined with account prerequisites, latency, integrity guarantees, and alternative routing, nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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%: both question and depth are already documented, and depth's enum semantics (quick=3 single hop, standard=3 with gap recovery + contradictions, thorough=6 paid iterative) are spelled out in the schema. The description adds latency expectations per depth and the 'multi-step questions resolve in one call' benefit, which is useful but modest value beyond an already rich schema.

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 1,517 structured data sources, decomposed into facets and routed across 5,798 tools in parallel, returning a findings packet. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from the sibling ask_pipeworx ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx'), so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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?

Provides explicit when/when-not guidance with named alternatives and conditions: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx.' It also gives concrete example queries ('compare X and Y's regulatory + financial exposure') that illustrate the intended broad/multi-part use case, leaving nothing to inference.

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