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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: account/sign-in requirements, latency expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s for thorough), explicit gaps[] for unanswered facets, contradictions[] for standard/thorough, stable pipeworx:// citations, and semantic excerpting of large records. It also clarifies this is NOT open-web search, a behavioral trait not visible in 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 dense, with the account requirement front-loaded and the core purpose stated early. Nearly every sentence adds operational or selection value, though there is a minor structural typo around 'Thorough depth: standard and thorough also return contradictions[]' and some redundancy about the one-call nature. It earns a 4, not 5, due to slight clutter.

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 tool with no output schema, the description compensates fully: it explains the findings packet structure, verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, stable citations, gaps[], contradictions[], excerpting behavior, latency, and account constraints. An agent has nearly everything needed to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 schema already documents both 'question' and 'depth' in detail. The description adds important selection-relevant meaning beyond the schema: 'thorough' requires a paid plan, the expected latency differs by depth, and the decomposition behavior is described. This lifts it above baseline.

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 1517 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, naming the sibling it is not, so an agent can separate it from the sibling set.

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' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead.' It also covers the account prerequisite, the paid-tier requirement for 'thorough' depth, and the fallback to ask_pipeworx when not signed in. 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.