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

The description goes far beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations. It discloses account and paid-plan requirements, decomposition into facets, parallel routing across 5,767 tools, the findings packet structure (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation), gaps[] behavior with 'never invented', contradictions[] for standard/thorough, semantic excerpting, hop fields, and latency expectations of 15–60s (up to ~90s).

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 information, and it is structured: account requirement, core purpose, how it works, best use cases, alternatives, depth behavior, output details, and latency. It front-loads the critical account constraint and the 'not open-web search' clarifier, though its length makes it slightly less scannable than the most concise definitions.

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 and only two parameters, the description covers output structure (findings packet, gaps, contradictions, hop, citation_uri), timing, access constraints, alternative tools, and limitations (e.g., empty gaps for news topics). An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by noting that depth:'thorough' requires a paid plan, and by reinforcing that broad/multi-part questions are the target use case. This plan/account constraint is not present in the schema, justifying a 4.

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, differentiated purpose: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1506 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call' and explicitly contrasts with 'this is NOT open-web search.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx and providing concrete examples of target use cases like comparing regulatory and financial exposure.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'; 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data'; 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx'; and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS ... prefer ask_pipeworx.' This gives clear selection criteria and exclusions.

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