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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, and idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: parallel decomposition, gaps[] for unanswered facets, no invented findings, hop and contradictions[] fields, citation fetchability guarantees, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. Nothing 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 every sentence carries load: account gate, alternatives, scope, decomposition, return packet, gaps policy, depth behavior, citation semantics, and timing. It is front-loaded with the most actionable constraints and organized so an agent can extract both purpose and operational details efficiently.

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 correctly explains the return packet: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citations, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop fields. Combined with rich annotations and complete parameter schemas, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains that 'thorough' requires a paid plan, that 'standard' performs gap recovery, that 'thorough' chases leads, and that contradictions[] appear only for standard/thorough. It also explains question decomposition and the semantics of depth levels more richly than the enum descriptions.

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 verb and resource: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1540 structured data sources in a single call. It clearly differentiates itself from open-web search and from the sibling ask_pipeworx, so an agent can identify what this tool is for without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool (broad/multi-part structured-data questions), when not to use it (single lookups, recent/news-type topics), and names the alternative: ask_pipeworx. It also handles the account prerequisite by directing signed-out agents to the fallback tool.

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