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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: account/paid-tier requirements, parallel decomposition and routing, gap[] reporting instead of invention, contradictions[] scans for standard/thorough, semantic excerpting of large records, stable pipeworx:// citations, and expected latency ranges. None of this contradicts the 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 packed with decision-relevant details and is front-loaded with the account requirement and main purpose before diving into behavior and latency. Some sentences are dense and run-on, but every major clause carries useful information for an agent deciding whether and how to call the 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the findings packet contents: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and citation_uri fetchability caveat. It also covers authentication, pricing, latency, depth semantics, and when to choose a sibling, making the tool callable with minimal ambiguity.

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 already fully documents both parameters. The description mostly restates what the schema already says about depth values, paid access, and the default standard tier; it does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 activity: grounded multi-source research over Pipeworx's structured data sources, decomposing questions into facets, routing them in parallel, and returning a findings packet. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from sibling ask_pipeworx, so an agent can separate it from alternatives without inspecting their schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: broad/multi-part questions over structured data are the best fit, and single lookups should use ask_pipeworx instead. It also gives a concrete exclusion boundary: breaking/current-news topics are better served by ask_pipeworx because deep_research returns mostly empty gaps for topics outside its structured catalog, and it warns that unsigned-in users must use ask_pipeworx.

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