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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by explaining parallel tool routing, the findings packet with verbatim evidence/confidence/source/fetched_at/citation, explicit gaps[] for unanswered facets, contradictions[] scans, semantic excerpting rather than head-truncation, and expected latency ranges. It also states that findings are never invented and citations are always fetchable.

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 nearly every sentence carries distinct operational value: account requirements, alternative routing, semantics, return envelope, gap handling, contradiction detection, citation guarantees, excerpting, and latency. It is front-loaded with the account/alternative warning so an agent can bail out early if unsupported.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains what the response contains, how gaps are handled, how contradictions are surfaced, what citation_uri guarantees, how large records are processed, and how long to expect the call to take. Nothing essential for calling 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes both question and depth. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by defining depth behaviors (single hop vs gap recovery vs follow-up/contradiction pass), noting that thorough requires a paid plan, and implying latency differences between depth levels.

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?

States a specific action (grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 structured data sources) in one call, with a rich description of the decomposition-and-parallel-routing mechanism. It also clearly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, which is named as the alternative for single lookups.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, and for a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead. It also gives an account-tier condition with a concrete instruction: if not signed in, use ask_pipeworx since it works on every tier.

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