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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it discloses parallel decomposition across 5,798 tools, returning a findings packet with gaps[], that it never invents answers, timing expectations (15-60s up to ~90s), and how citations are always fetchable. These go beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't detail every edge case.

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 carries meaningful information — account requirements, alternatives, data scope, mechanics, return format, timing, and exclusions. It's front-loaded with the most critical constraint (account/sign-in requirement and alternative). While it could be trimmed, its density justifies its length for a complex tool.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers far more than expected: data coverage, routing mechanism, return packet contents, gap handling, citation resolvability, timing, and tier differences. It lacks an explicit return-format example, but given the rich behavioral description, the tool is well-enough specified for an agent to invoke 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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds context by explaining what 'quick', 'standard', and 'thorough' mean behaviorally in terms of hops and contradiction scanning, which enriches the enum semantics. However, it doesn't add much beyond what the schema describes, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool performs grounded multi-source research over 1517 structured data sources in one call, with explicit examples of the kind of questions it handles. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and names ask_pipeworx as the alternative for single lookups, making it easy to differentiate from siblings.

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 clear when-to-use guidance ('best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data'), explicit when-not-to-use guidance (breaking news / current events -> prefer ask_pipeworx), and names the alternative tool. Also includes account requirements and depth tier explanations, leaving little ambiguity about usage conditions.

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