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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context: account and paid-tier requirements, output shape (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, stable pipeworx:// citations), gap[] behavior, contradiction scanning, timing expectations, and a warning that this is not open-web search.

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 front-loaded with the account requirement and alternative tool, but it is overlong and duplicates much of what the schema already documents. It also contains a self-referential apology ('this description is way too long') and a truncated sentence ('Use it if the ...'), which are clear structural and polish failures.

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, the description covers inputs, auth and pricing, return packet fields, citation resolvability, gap/contradiction behavior, and expected latency. The trailing truncation and meta-commentary are blemishes, but an agent still has enough to invoke the tool and interpret its 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters well. The description adds useful beyond-schema meaning by noting that depth:'thorough' requires a paid plan and by giving example questions that demonstrate the question parameter's broad/multi-part nature.

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 1499 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call') and clearly identifies the resource and scope. It also distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx for single lookups, making sibling differentiation clear despite the truncated ending.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead.' It also states the best-fit case — 'broad/multi-part questions over structured data' — with concrete examples, so an agent can decide when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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