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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it states that findings never invent data (explicit gaps[]), that every finding carries hop and citation fields, that citations are fetchable via resources/read, that large records are semantically excerpted rather than head-truncated, and that contradictory findings are flagged. It also sets timing expectations (15-60s, up to 90s for thorough). This provides deep, honest behavioral transparency.

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 dense but front-loaded with the most operationally critical constraint (account required). Every sentence earns its place by covering a distinct behavioral fact: from the account requirement to the NOT open-web distinction, to depth semantics, to the citation contract, to timing. It is long, but the complexity of the tool justifies the length; a shorter description would lose material routing and expectation-setting information. Slight deduction for a few run-on clauses that could be tightened.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining what the return packet contains: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citations, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop fields. It also covers prerequisites (account, paid tier for thorough), latency expectations, and failure modes (gaps for absent topics). An agent could call this tool correctly and interpret its results without needing anything else.

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 schema already documents both question and depth. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema by explaining what depths mean in behavioral terms: quick=3 facets, standard=3 with gap recovery and contradiction scan, thorough=6 with iterative lead chasing. It also says breadth is fine for the question field ('Broad/multi-part is fine — decomposition is the point'). This goes beyond the schema 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 gives a specific verb and resource: performing grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 structured data sources in a single call. It clearly differentiates from siblings by explicitly stating 'this is NOT open-web search' and naming ask_pipeworx as the alternative for live news. It also explains the parallel decomposition behavior, which distinguishes it from simpler lookup tools.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including examples ('compare X and Y's regulatory + financial exposure'), and explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS topics, prefer ask_pipeworx.' It also names the required account tier and directs unsigned-in users to ask_pipeworx, plus advises against paid depth for non-paid tiers. This is exceptional routing guidance.

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