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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so safety is covered; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing account requirements, the paid gate for thorough, expected latency, the gaps[]/never-invented guarantee, resolvable citations, contradictions[] on standard/thorough, and semantic excerpting of large records. No statement contradicts the annotations.

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 deliberately structured: access gate first, then core capability, usage guidance, then depth/citation/contradiction details. Nearly every sentence carries useful information, but the depth-behavior detail partly repeats schema text, preventing a perfect 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 must define the return contract itself, and it does: findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, hop, citation_uri, gaps[], and contradictions[]. It also covers auth, pricing, latency, coverage limits, and the non-truncation behavior. This is complete for a complex orchestration tool.

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?

Both parameters have full schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The prose adds non-schema value by exposing the paid tier constraint for depth:'thorough', concrete latency expectations per depth, and examples of the kind of question the tool is designed for. It does not add new syntax or formats, so a 4 (not 5) 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?

States a precise capability: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call' and describes the decompose/route/return pipeline. It explicitly distances itself from open-web search and from sibling tools ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'). This makes its purpose unmistakable and differentiated.

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 a clear best-use rule ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') with concrete examples, and names the alternative for the non-matching case ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'). It also handles the access edge case: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead' and tells which depth requires a paid plan. This is explicit when/when-not guidance.

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