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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/safe, and the description goes far beyond them: latency expectations (15-60s, ~90s for thorough), auth/tier gating, the never-invented garentee of explicit gaps[], contradictions[] for standard+thorough, semantic excerpting of large records (not head-trucated), and citation resolvability via pipeworx:// URIs. No contradiction with the annotations — a read-only, open-world persona consistent with 'never invented' findings.

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?

Every sentence carries information, but the structure is sprawling — heavy parenthetical nesting, run-on sentences (notably the citation_uri sentence), and depth-behavior content woven into the middle as a dense aside. The auth gate and sibling routing are well front-loaded, but the prose would benefit from labeled sections or tighter reorganization.

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 bears the full burden of explaining return values, and it does: findings packet fields (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, stable pipeworx:// citation), gaps[] and contradictions[] semantics, latency, auth/tier requirements, and alternative tool routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly and interpret its results 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema alone documents question and depth. The description adds real value beyond it: it ties each depth enum to concrete behavior (quick=single hop, standard=gap-recovery hop, thorough=iterative chase), ties 'thorough' to a paid plan, and clarifies that question should be broad/multi-part ('decomposition is the point'). Incremental rather than essential, hence 4.

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... in ONE call' and explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search ('this is NOT open-web search'). The description also separates it from ask_pipeworx ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx'), so an agent can distinguish it from 35 siblings without opening the schema.

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 two explicit routing rules with named alternatives: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead.' Adds a 'Best for' clause with concrete example queries and a paid-tier constraint for depth:'thorough', so the agent knows exactly when and under what conditions to invoke this tool.

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