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

Goes far beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: discloses auth tier requirements, latency expectations (15-60s, ~90s for thorough), the never-invented guarantee, gaps[] and contradictions[] behavior, the citation_uri fetchability guarantee, and semantic excerpting of large records. No annotation contradiction.

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 auth gate is sensibly front-loaded, but the description is a dense single paragraph with 'use ask_pipeworx instead' appearing three times and some garbled tokens in the news-routing passage that slightly hurt scannability.

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 supplies the full output contract (findings packet contents, citation URIs, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field) plus auth, latency, and per-depth behavior. Across 33 siblings and 2 parameters, nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds concrete example questions that show what a well-formed 'question' looks like and attaches latency expectations to depth modes. It loses a point because its depth-mode prose (gap recovery, chasing leads, contradictions scan) largely restates the schema's enum descriptions.

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 1506 structured data sources in one call, and explicitly says this is NOT open-web search. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by scope and adds concrete example questions that make the intended use unmistakable.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (signed-in account, broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and explicit when-not-to conditions (single lookups and current-news topics → use ask_pipeworx instead). It even explains why: news topics fall outside the structured catalog and would return mostly empty gaps[].

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