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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: auth requirements, paid tier, parallel routing, gap reporting with never-invented guarantees, contradiction scans, semantic excerpting, and timing expectations. 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?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the most critical constraint (paid account) before scope. Every clause earns its place for a tool this complex, though it could benefit from bullets or clearer separation of auth, depth, output, and timing. Still appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the return packet shape (evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri), gaps behavior, contradictions, citation resolvability, latency, auth, and alternatives. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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% and depth is already documented in the schema. The description adds useful context: thorough requires a paid plan, depth tiers map to iterative hops, and natural-language multi-part questions are explicitly supported. This goes beyond the schema without being redundant.

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 clearly identifies deep_research as a grounded multi-source research tool that decomposes questions, routes them across thousands of tools, and returns a findings packet. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from single-lookup ask_pipeworx, so its purpose is unmistakable.

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 states when to use it (hood/multi-part questions over structured data), when not to (single lookup: use ask_pipeworx instead), and the account prerequisite with a fallback. The depth tiers are also described with their practical differences. This is explicit routing guidance.

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