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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: account and paid-plan requirements, parallel decomposition across 5,798 tools, findings-packet contents, explicit gaps[], contradiction scanning, never-invented evidence, fetchable citation URIs, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. This is rich, concrete behavioral disclosure.

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?

Long but every sentence earns its place; the account/access note is front-loaded, the main purpose follows immediately, and the detailed behavior is packed into dense but scannable clauses. No filler or repetition that would reduce agent comprehension.

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 research tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, outputs, access constraints, failure/gap behavior, citation fetchability, latency, and alternatives. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'question' is natural language and explicitly accepts multi-part questions, and enriches the 'depth' enum with facet counts, hop behavior, contradiction scanning, and the paid requirement for 'thorough'.

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 1517 structured data sources, explicitly calling out that it is NOT open-web search. It also differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as best for broad/multi-part questions and by naming ask_pipeworx as the single-lookup alternative.

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'), explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'), and an access prerequisite with an alternative ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx'). Depth selection guidance is also tied to plan tier and behavior.

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