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

Annotations already signal read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: account gating, paid tier requirement for thorough depth, never-invented gaps[], stable pipeworx:// citations, contradiction scanning, semantic excerpting, and expected latency. No annotation contradictions are present.

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 dense; nearly every sentence contributes distinct information about gating, behavior, output format, alternatives, or timing. It is front-loaded with the most actionable information (account requirement and alternative tool) before explaining the mechanism. Minor redundancy in the depth explanation between description and schema keeps it from a 5.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the output packet shape, citation format, gap handling, contradiction detection, latency expectations, account requirements, and use-case boundaries. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret results accurately.

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%, but the description adds meaningful nuance to the depth parameter by explaining facet counts, hops, gap recovery, and contradiction scanning, as well as the paid requirement for thorough. It also reinforces that the question parameter should be natural language and can be broad or multi-part, which is extra value 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 identifies a specific verb and resource: conducting grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's structured data sources in one call. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and names its closest sibling (ask_pipeworx) with the condition for using that alternative. It also states its intended niche: broad/multi-part questions over structured data.

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 explicitly says when to use deep_research, when not to use it, and what to use instead: use ask_pipeworx if not signed in, and use ask_pipeworx for a single lookup. It also contrasts this tool with open-web search and positions it for broad or multi-part questions, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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