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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: parallel decomposition, gap handling with explicit gaps[] (never invented), contradictions[] for standard/thorough, semantic excerpting of large records, and expected latency. It also explains that citations are always resolvable, giving the agent a realistic execution model.

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 front-loaded with the critical account requirement, and every section covers a necessary aspect (usage, behavior, output, latency, alternatives). Slight redundancy remains, for example the 'one call' idea appears repeatedly and ask_pipeworx is mentioned twice, keeping it just short of top marks.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return shape: findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], and contradictions[]. It also covers account tiers, latency, and what happens to multi-step questions, so an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the call correctly.

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%, so the schema carries the parameter descriptions. The description adds useful new context by stating that depth:'thorough' requires a paid plan and that multi-step questions resolve in one call, which helps an agent choose the right depth. It mostly reinforces rather than redundantly restates the enum semantics.

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 action ('Grounded multi-source research') over a defined resource ('Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources') and immediately distinguishes itself from open-web search. It also names sibling ask_pipeworx as the tool for single lookups, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 is explicit about when to use deep_research ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and when not to ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx'). It also covers auth gating with a concrete alternative ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'), and the depth tiers are mapped to plan paid/standard conditions.

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