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

With annotations already carrying readOnly/idempotent/openWorld hints, the description still adds substantial behavioral context: latency expectations ('Expect 15-60s… thorough… up to ~90s'), the never-invent guarantee ('explicit gaps[]… never invented'), contradictions[] behavior for standard/thorough depths, citation resolvability caveats ('present only when the source emits one'), and excerpting semantics ('semantically excerpted… not head-truncated'). Consistently aligns with 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 a ~250-word single paragraph with no hierarchy. Account/pricing information leads, delaying the actual function statement to the third sentence, and the ask_pipeworx routing appears twice ('If you are not signed in…' and 'For a single lookup…'). Several clauses are run-ons (e.g., the citation_uri sentence). Content is valuable but poorly disciplined in structure and size.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies the return packet (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field), auth tiers, depth semantics, latency, and sibling routing. There is no critical operational detail an agent would need in order to select and invoke the tool correctly that is missing.

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 baseline is 3; both parameters are well-documented there. The description adds value beyond the schema: the paid-tier gating for depth='thorough', per-depth latency expectations, and concrete multi-part example questions illustrating the 'question' parameter. Some depth semantics duplicate the schema's enum descriptions, so it doesn't reach 5.

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 core function is stated with a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1506 STRUCTURED data sources… in ONE call', with an explicit contrast to open-web search ('this is NOT open-web search'). It further describes the mechanism (decomposing questions into facets routed across 5,767 tools), so an agent can distinguish it from search, ask_pipeworx, and entity_profile siblings.

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 routing rules: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead.' It also states what it is best for ('broad/multi-part questions over structured data') with two concrete example questions, and flags the cost constraint (depth:'thorough' needs a paid plan). Nothing is left to inference.

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