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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: gaps[] are 'never invented,' citations are only returned when fetchable, standard/thorough include contradictions[], large records are semantically excerpted, and latency is 15-90s. It also surfaces the account and paid-plan requirements, which annotations do not convey. No contradiction exists between the description and 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 dense and front-loaded with the most decision-relevant facts: account requirement, not-open-web-search, and the key sibling alternative. It is a long single paragraph rather than structured bullets, which makes it harder to scan, but nearly every sentence contributes a distinct fact. It earns its length given the tool's complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fully explains what the agent should expect: a findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citations, explicit gaps[], contradictions[], hop fields, and fetchable citation_uri. It also covers authentication, latency, depth behavior, and when to route elsewhere. Nothing essential for invoking 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%: the schema already documents the question parameter and fully explains the depth enum including hop behavior, default, and paid thorough tier. The description mostly restates that same information and adds little truly new parameter-level meaning. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from the ask_pipeworx siblings with 'this is NOT open-web search' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead.' An agent can clearly identify what this tool does and how it differs from adjacent tools.

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: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' with concrete examples. It also names alternatives and conditions: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead,' prefer ask_pipeworx for current-news topics, and 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead.' This is unusually complete routing guidance.

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