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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context: account/auth requirements, paid tier requirement, no invented findings via explicit gaps[], resolvable citation_uri, contradictions[], semantic excerpting of large records, and expected latency. No contradiction with 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?

Long and dense, but front-loaded with the account gate, core purpose, and alternatives before deeper output details. Some slight redundancy, such as describing the findings packet twice and mentioning ask_pipeworx twice, but nearly every sentence carries useful invocation or selection information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers inputs, output format, citations, gaps, contradictions, auth, tier restrictions, latency, and route-to-alternative conditions. An agent has enough context to decide whether to use it and how to invoke it appropriately.

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 schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds extra value by linking 'thorough' to the paid plan, clarifying that 'standard' and 'thorough' include contradiction scanning, and giving concrete example questions that make the 'question' parameter's intended breadth concrete.

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 over 1,517 structured data sources in one call, with decomposition and parallel routing. Explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx for single lookups, so an agent can select it confidently.

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 explicit when-not-to-use: use ask_pipeworx for single lookups or when not signed in. Also explains tier constraints for the paid 'thorough' depth, making selection and invocation conditions clear.

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