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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: account gating with a paid tier for 'thorough', 15-90s latency expectations, no-hallucination guarantee via explicit gaps[], citation resolvability semantics (citation_uri only when fetchable), contradictions[] scanning, parallel routing across 5,798 tools, and semantic excerpting of large records. This far exceeds what annotations convey.

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?

Every sentence carries real information and the critical auth constraint is front-loaded, but the description is a dense multi-hundred-word single paragraph riddled with nested parentheticals and mid-sentence asides ('(free — sign in via GitHub...; depth:"thorough" needs a paid plan)'). The volume of content is justified by complexity, but the run-on structure makes it hard to scan.

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 correctly takes responsibility for return values, detailing the findings packet (verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + pipeworx:// citation), gaps[] behavior, contradictions[], and timing. For a tool with this complexity — parallel routing, depth modes, citation semantics, auth tiers — nothing essential an agent needs to invoke it correctly or set expectations 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 fully documents both 'question' and 'depth'. The description adds operational context beyond the schema — 'thorough' requires a paid plan and the hop behavior differences between depth tiers — which is helpful but not essential for parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the explanatory load.

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 ('research') and resource ('Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources') and clearly differentiates from siblings: 'this is NOT open-web search' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx'. It leaves no ambiguity about what this tool is versus its alternatives.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', with a named alternative ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx') and an account-based exclusion ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'). The agent knows exactly when to select this tool and when to route elsewhere.

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