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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: parallel routing across 5,743 tools, findings packet structure, gaps[] for unanswered facets, contradictions[] for standard/thorough, hop fields, fetchable citation_uri only when source emits one, semantic excerpting, and 15-90s latency. It also discloses limits — returns mostly empty gaps[] for current-news topics not in the structured catalog.

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?

Front-loaded with the most critical operational gate (account requirement and the alternative tool), followed by the core capability and then depth semantics and citation details. It is long, but nearly every sentence adds decision-relevant or result-interpretation value; only minor redundancy like 'this is NOT open-web search' and the repeated zero-waste structure keep it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the burden of explaining return values: verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + pipeworx:// citation, explicit gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and citation_uri fetchability. It also covers timing, depth behavior, limits, and sibling routing, so an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results 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 coverage is 100% for question and depth, and the description enriches both. It details how depth values affect hop count and gap recovery beyond the enum descriptions: 'depth:"standard" re-angles unanswered gaps (gap recovery); depth:"thorough" additionally chases the best leads from the first pass'. It also clarifies that question is natural-language and that broad/multi-part input is acceptable.

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 1500 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call' and describes the decomposition and routing behavior. It clearly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by noting this is not open-web search and is best for broad/multi-part questions.

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 guidance: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' and expressly names alternatives — 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx'. Also provides the account-gating rule: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier.'

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