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

Annotations mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses parallel tool routing, findings-packet structure, gaps[] never-invented behavior, contradiction scans, semantic excerpting, citation fetchability, and latency. No surprising side effects are hidden.

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 information-dense; nearly every sentence contributes operational detail, and the most important routing/auth guidance is front-loaded. It loses a point because the depth-tier discussion partially duplicates the schema description and the whole thing is a single dense paragraph that could be structured more cleanly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value contract on its own. It does so thoroughly: findings packet fields, hop and citation_uri behavior, gaps[], contradictions[], semantic excerpting, expected latency, auth requirements, and fallback tool. The agent has everything needed 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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one critical piece beyond the schema: depth:'thorough' requires a paid plan, which directly affects invocation success. It also reinforces the meaning of quick/standard/thorough and question decomposition, so it earns 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 action: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's structured data sources in one call, with decomposition, parallel routing, and a findings packet. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, making its purpose 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?

Usage guidance is explicit: use ask_pipeworx when not signed in, use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, and use deep_research for broad/multi-part structured-data questions. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction rather than leaving it to inference.

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