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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses auth tiers and paid depth, latency expectations, hallucination guardrails ('never invented', explicit gaps[]), citation fetchability guarantees, and hop/contradiction behaviors. This is far richer than the annotations require and leaves no misleading gaps.

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 every sentence earns its place; the critical account requirement and fallback route are front-loaded before feature exposition. The flow from purpose to routing guidance to behavior details to timing makes it scannable despite length.

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, it specifies return structure (findings packet with evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, contradictions[]) and failure behavior (gaps[]). It covers auth, latency, decomposition, and fallback routing, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description re-states depth defaults and the broad-question fit, but the schema's own parameter descriptions already detail the depth enum and the question style, so the description adds little new parameter-level meaning.

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 structured catalog in one call. It explicitly differentiates from open-web search and names the sibling ask_pipeworx, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and when-not-to-use guidance ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx'). Also includes an auth-based routing rule: if not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead.

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