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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: latency expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s for thorough), auth/plan requirements, and the output contract (verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + pipeworx:// citation, with gaps[] never invented and contradictions[] on standard/thorough). Also discloses semantic excerpting so agents know answers deep in long records are found rather than head-truncated.

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?

Information-dense, with the most critical operational fact front-loaded ('ACCOUNT REQUIRED — use ask_pipeworx if not signed in'). It is long and run-on with minor internal repetition (contradictions[] mentioned twice; depth hops described in both schema and prose), but nearly every sentence carries a distinct signal for a genuinely complex tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full return-format burden and meets it: findings packet, per-finding fields, citations, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop field. Auth, latency, exclusions, and depth semantics are all covered — 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% and the schema already documents both parameters well, including the quick/standard/thorough enums. The description adds operational meaning to depth — paid status of thorough, timing per level, when the follow-up hops are worth it — that the schema enum lacks, though some depth behavior repeats what the schema already states.

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 verb and resource — 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources' — and hard-excludes open-web search. It differentiates from ask_pipeworx explicitly rather than relying on the title, and describes the decomposition/parallel-routing mechanism that makes this distinct from siblings.

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 guidance: broad/multi-part structured-data questions ('compare X and Y's regulatory + financial exposure'). Names ask_pipeworx as the alternative in three separate conditions — no account, single lookup, and breaking/colloquial current-news — so an agent can route reliably every time.

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