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

Beyond annotations (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent), the description adds: never-invented gaps[], contradictions[] for standard/thorough, semantic excerpting of large records, latency 15-60s (up to ~90s for thorough), and an account requirement. It also describes the findings packet contents. No contradiction with readOnlyHint or other 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?

Dense but front-loaded: the account gate and sibling alternative appear in the first sentence. There is minor redundancy with the schema's depth description (contradictions[], depth counts), but no fluff; the length is justified by the tool's behavioral 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?

Even though no output schema exists, the description fully explains the return packet — verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, explicit gaps[], contradictions[] — and covers auth, latency, and source scope. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly from the description alone.

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%; depth and question are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only general guidance — questions can be broad/multi-part, thorough is paid — which is helpful but does not materially extend parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1506 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call." It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from the sibling ask_pipeworx, and names the intended use case (broad/multi-part questions) with concrete examples.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use rules: "If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead" and "For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx." It also flags that depth "thorough" requires a paid plan. This is unambiguous decision guidance for an agent.

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