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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral disclosures beyond annotations: account/sign-in requirements, paid gating for 'thorough', latency ranges (15-60s, up to ~90s), non-invention guarantee with gaps[], contradictions[] flagging in deeper modes, semantic excerpting of long records, and stable pipeworx:// citations. 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 long but information-dense and well-structured: account notice first, then core mechanism, output format, best-use cases, alternatives, depth-specific semantics, and latency. Every sentence adds operational or behavioral detail; there is no filler or redundancy. The front-loading of the account requirement and the alternative tool is particularly useful.

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 high behavioral complexity and lack of an output schema, the description pre-explains the full return shape (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], contradictions[]) as well as timing and edge cases. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its output, despite the absence of an output schema.

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% for both parameters, so the schema describes the basic fields and enum values. The description goes further: it explains that 'depth' maps to facet counts (quick=3, standard=3, thorough=6), describes the hops ('single hop', 'gap-recovery hop', 'full iterative hop'), and clarifies that the paid plan is needed for 'thorough'. For 'question', it confirms natural-language, broad/multi-part input is acceptable, which is exactly the reasoning an agent needs.

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-resource pair: it 'performs grounded multi-source research' across 1540 structured data sources, decomposes questions into facets, routes them to tools, and returns a findings packet. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx for single lookups, so an agent can identify when this tool is the right choice.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus ask_pipeworx: if not signed in, use ask_pipeworx; for a single lookup, use ask_pipeworx; for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, use deep_research. It also states the paid-plan requirement for 'thorough' depth and the free tier for the rest, leaving no ambiguity about prerequisites or alternatives.

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